Polemic: Envy in context

Polemic: Envy in context

Envy in context

THE POLITICS OF ENVY should be regarded as a sickness in certain cases, and be treated accordingly. It has no class based restriction, as it is familiar among narrow sections of the working and middle classes. Its spread however does seem to find a warm and welcoming home among socialists, with an added poisonous intent toward their class enemies. Political scientists and sociologists cannot be trusted to talk dispassionately on such an association because they themselves are the victims of the same infection. So what about medical science?

            

            Well, even hear many of those working within the NHS seem to share the same impulses – although its preponderance seems to decline the further up the salary scale you travel. Perhaps it is just part of human nature; and therefore let many socialists who share these emotions, off the hook.

            

             Are not, after all, the wealthy also envious of those richer than themselves? This can certainly be the case; for wealth creation is prompted partly through envy as well as ability and enterprise  –  but the difference with this and political class envy, is that the wealthy use such envy as an element of competition…we all have it, but it is only the socialists that poisons the well of what is, a competitive free market environment; by turning wealth creation into an evil – thus we have wealth taxes of all sorts deemed by the socialists to merit what they regard as fairness in any presupposed but narrow ideological meaning of the term.

THE LATEST socialist aversion to wealth comes in the form of Ed Miliband's intention to tax properties valued at over £2 million. Known as the 'mansion tax' its purpose is to provide an additional £2 billion to the annual NHS budget of £113billion. This would amount to, if it is fully harvested by the treasury; to a mere one week's expenditure on the NHS.

            

             But the mansion tax's sole purpose is to appeal to the envious impulses of Labour supporters. It is a vacuous, meaningless, and, if all is retrieved that is supposed to be by government; then its impact on an NHS facing a multi-billion pound black hole in its financing, would be nominal.

            

             On top of which, the practicalities of such a tax would prove disastrous in their application. A mansion according to Labour's politics of envy supposes that the residents of such properties are millionaires themselves. London will be the most fruitful harvest of such a tax; but as we know, the rise in London's house prices bare little comparison to the rest of the country. There are plenty of elderly people living in properties in London that fit Red Ed's qualification for the mansion tax who are not themselves wealthy but mere victims of the state of the London property market. Ed himself would have to pay the tax on his own property to the tune of £7,000 per year.

THE MANSION tax is the creation of socialist envy – an envy tagged to an ideology known as socialism. An ideologically driven source of class hatred once pursued by Ed Miliband's father and now continued by his intellectually lesser son, who cheated his more talented brother from becoming the Labour Party leader due to the union block vote…in other words, Ed was elected by Marxist imbeciles, like himself.

            

            The Labour Party, as well as the country now deserves all they get from Ed's 'leadership' of a party, that, if the polls are to be believed, will be elected (God help us) next May, to the government of this now pitiful, but once great nation.

IF THIS COMES about then political envy will be its credo. Red Ed will obliterate the Blair New Labour  reformation. He will instinctively steer and favour a leftward course; favouring his father's basest socialist instincts, and will no doubt add a greater burden to our deficit by the socialist triptych of Taxing, Spending, and Borrowing …socialisms version of the Catholic trilogy of Father, Son, and Holy ghost.

            

            Envy in context, is this piece's title, meant to show that envy is a human emotion but becomes dangerous if deployed as the basis of a political ideology, which it has been by socialism; pandering as it does to the class hatred of its fevered disciples. Socialism is and has always been the precursor of totalitarianism – that over-wielding might of the state transgressing upon the liberty of the individual.

                       

           

           

                         

             

The English alone

ONLY ENGLISH parliamentarians should ever debate and vote on laws to do with England. The result of the Scottish independence referendum has finally brought the Midlothian question to a head; and we must thank a Scotsman, Alex Salmond, for achieving it.

            

            It is not acceptable for Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish members of the Westminster parliament to vote on English issues. How this system has been tolerated for so long has had more to do with party political interest than it has to any concept of fairness to the English people.

            

            In the past both the main parties have lived with this anomaly because each of them benefited from the system; and the Labour Party still does, which is why Ed Milliband is opposed to such a notion and wishes to promote a long drawn out inquiry[1], preferably adjacent to what he believes will be his term in office as prime minister after May 2015.

            

            This will not do. Any new settlement of an English constitution, must agree its terms and conditions beforehand; and considering the nature of the inquiry, the following cannot ever be included; simply because they run contrary to the purpose of such an inquiry seeking a purely English settlement.

            

             The exclusion of none English parliamentary representatives debating and voting on purely English subjects within parliament can only be seen as being axiomatic within an English national parliamentary framework, by any fair-minded individual. No one but the English has any right to blue-print and vote through any parliamentary law applicable to England. There is, and can never be, any case to be made for the current arrangement, after the result on Scottish independence last Thursday.

ED MILLIBAND is in a desperate plight. Over the border in Scotland, his party lost many votes to the Yes cause. In England many Labour working class voters, as in Scotland, are beginning to turn their backs on Labour, and in England are steadily turning toward Ukip; as are many Tory voters.

            

            The Labour Party, once the party of the UK's working class, have now become detached from them; preferring their seduction of ethnic minorities as a replacement. The party is now represented by a London elite, as are the other three main parties.

           

            Both north and south of the border, traditional working class Labour voters have now found somewhere else to turn. They can no longer be taken for granted; just as the traditional Tory voter can no longer be – both, however, can now find (if it is their whish) a welcome home within Ukip.

            

            In the coming weeks and months following this momentous vote by the Scottish electorate; more and more English people will put a new English constitutional settlement side by side with the EU and immigration, as their priority over all other domestic issues now the country has freed itself from recession.

           

            Milliband has this morning (Sunday 21^st  September) tried to turn the heads of his supporters with promises of a rise in the minimum wage to eight pounds by (wait for it) 2020, on the eve of his party's conference in Manchester.

            

            Milliband wants the English constitutional set-up to remain the same. He therefore seeks to see it, and hopes his Labour voters will see it; as a mere theatrical backdrop to the standard of living debate he has re-orchestrated, and hopes to win the next election with.

            

             But he will be disappointed if he tries this tactic. He has taken for granted his party's support in Scotland; seeing his party's traditional voters north of the boarder as sheep to be herded to the ballot box by party apparatchiks in the service of a Labour victory.

THE THREE GREAT issues of the day, are not domestic social ones, but national and international ones. The Scottish vote has enlivened the English voter, who have been for so long held almost in disdain by their self-confident, and almost arrogant party leaders from all three main parties. In the past all of the indigenous English have been effectively silenced on immigration; they have been patronised and ignored by the 'we know best attitude' of the political class, when it comes to signing away our sovereignty on Europe, without ever  consulting the people they are supposed to represent.

            

            Now, we, the English people, have allowed separate nations to our own to vote in parliament on issues to do purely with English matters. Scottish as well as Welsh and Northern Irish MP's have been allowed to vote in all the debates at Westminster, irrespective of whether the laws debated and voted upon applied only to England.

           

             It is an unfairness that cannot be challenged even by Milliband, who seeks to change the political agenda to his party's own advantage and not the English nation's – at least while his party conference is assembling.

I HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT the English people from whatever political background they have traditionally belonged; will turn away from their traditional parties (as happened in Scotland) to lay claim to a new English constitutional settlement. This would mean voting for a new party; a nationalist party. A party at whose centre, after the Scottish vote, should be focused on a renewed English constitution bereft of any interference from any other part of the Union of the type Milliband hopes to cling on to – he refused 13 times to give his support to a constitution that sought to end the anomaly of Scottish members voting for English laws.

            

            Ukip has to be given a chance, just as the Labour Party were given, first under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 and between 1929-31; and then in 1945 under the great Clement Attlee landslide. That Party is now refocusing itself as a liberal middle-class party, the likes of which Dennis Skinner would feel like something Ed Miliband has found on the sole of his shoe.

           

             We need a new English constitution, which, even before it is discussed, it should be agreed that the final constitution should not allow any other nation or federation of nations to have any say in laws enacted by English MP's on purely English issues. Whatever the arrangements contained in a final English constitution; if it does not contain such a guarantee  from the very beginning, then it cannot be an English constitution – if English law makers are not the sole authors of the laws making their nation, then there is no point in providing the architecture for such document…yet this is the kind of  English 'constitution' Ed Milliband seems to want.

                       

           

             

---

[1] The structure and nature of which, as well as the ground rules will no doubt be determined not by parliament as a whole, but by a Milliband government.

Where Clackmannanshire goes, Scotland follows; and the 'Three Amigos' kow-tow.

CLACKMANNANSHIRE was the first to declare in the Scottish referendum and piloted the way to a No victory. The final result was Yes 44%, No 55%: but this is not the end of the matter regarding national constitutions – particularly in England.

            

             Twelve days ago the Sunday Times published its now infamous poll showing for the very first time in over two years of taking such polls leading up to the Independence referendum that the Yes vote was in the lead for the first time. Considering such an incongruity, one would have thought that our three party leaders south of the boarder would have waited for such a poll to become a trend before they took to the pages of the Daily Record to award the Scots with the over generous endowment  known as devo max (something which Cameron had refused to allow as a third option on the ballot paper).

             

             Panic had set in, and Gordon Brown was chosen to set the ball rolling[1] by promising his native countrymen all sorts of goodies in order to keep the Union safe. This was followed by, what in Scotland are known contemptuously as the 'Three Amigos', rubber stamping Gordon's promise of more beads and blankets for the Scottish people.

            

             The Vow as it was christened by those who made it, reads like a begging letter for the Scots to stay as part of the Union. Once the Vow was made, Alex Salmond knew he could not loose either way. Sure. He faced personal disappointment at not getting full independence; but he had a weak hand anyway according to the polls; on top of which he set the cat among the pigeons in England regarding new constitutional arrangements…not a bad result for someone who has lost.

            
             In the end the 'Three Amigos' folded with a Royal Flush. Thiers was not a promise made behind closed doors (although it had been made on the back of an envelope) which they could argue over after the result: the whole country had the ability to see and read it. Salmond will now have comfort of knowing that what he had been offered was 99% of what he would have had under independence. He had made Cameron promise, in the end, what he would not allow on the ballot paper…devo max.

NOW THE 'THREE AMIGOS' are left to face their own electorate south of the border. For not only will the Scots be allowed to raise their own taxes; but also be allowed to continue enjoying the unequal Barnett Formula which allows a far greater per capita head of spending on the Scottish people than on the English, who pay the taxes that gift the Scots their greater worth.

           

            During the campaign  Lord Barnett (now 91) gave an interview where he said, what has been described as his 'formula' was in fact ‘a subterfuge of a formula’ meant only as a temporary measure for Scotland to last two years: and, asked whether he thinks it should be axed, he said, 'I do now'; adding that he was now prepared to call for a debate in the House of Lords to try and force a debate on the issue.

            

             It is now time for the English to have their say. Their voice has been all but ignored principally by the Westminster parliament on countless political issues; but also by the Metropolitan London elite who see themselves as the beacon for the rest of the country, without knowing or even trying to understand what the rest of the country thinks. It is on their say-so that immigration is welcomed; it is on their say-so that multiculturalism has to be accepted.

            

            The London liberal 'progressive' tide that has brought this country gradually to its current impasse over the past 45 years, cannot have any say in the new English constitutional settlement that must follow yesterday's result in Scotland.

            

             First of all, only English MPs should make laws and vote for purely English legislation. Secondly we must be given an English Parliament if the various English regions are to be accommodated. If the Scots and the Welsh have their own devolved parliaments; then so must the English.

THE ENGLISH have been ignored because of their passivity and tolerance by the self-regarding liberal elite that have swamped this English nation with their progressive diatribe for near-on 40 years. An invective that has wrought fear through opposing all forms of political correctness and multiculturalism.

            

            This Scottish result has reverberated across the UK, and has hopefully awoken the English from their passivity and fear of challenging the status quo regulated from London. In parliament Tory backbenchers are already seeking to challenge Cameron for what he, along with his other two amigos, are prepared to offer Scotland; and many Labour backbenchers are also appearing in somewhat querulous mood about Miliband's performance in all of this.

            

            This is not all over by any means. This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end. There is a long road to yet travel. The English have yet to have their say. A say on the Union which they were disenfranchised from; as they have already been from any say on any aspect of the European Union .

            

             It is now time, after this vote, for England to have its own say. The English will be the financial providers for Scottish devo max through their taxes, promised them by the sweaty panic stricken 'Three Amigos'.

           

             The English should thank Alex Salmond for unlocking the key to a more equitable constitutional arrangement…but we English must treat with the greatest caution and judge the political motives of any contribution from any of the party leaders towards this farer English constitutional arrangement. My advice for what it is worth to all the supporters of the three main parties is side with and vote Ukip. By doing so, who knows, the 'Three Amigos' may put in another appearance – this time on England's behalf.

             

---

[1] One can only hope that  he was chosen,  and not allowed to make such promises off his own back.

Why Scottish Independence would be good for the English

I CANNOT UNDERSTAND  the Conservative Party's retreat into gloom at the prospect of an independent Scotland. Cries of  'Woe is me!' are emanating from Downing Street and Buckingham Palace at the release of the latest polls showing the prospect of Scotland going it alone come next Thursday.

            

           What is left of what was once the Tory establishment, including the monarchy, are in a perilous and frantic mood; they are behaving almost hysterically not knowing what to do if the Scottish people vote yes… 'Woe is me!'

            

            Alex Salmond no doubt sits above the fray at Holyrood, enjoying the English establishment's incontinence, as they seek to pay whatever price they are asked to pay to keep Scottish independence at bay. When I see my country's leaders behaving in such a way, I feel a personal humiliation, as I feel sure many thousands of other English people do.

            

            Whatever happens next Thursday, I believe the English people will be left displeased. If the yes vote wins, then the English will (if today's Mail on Sunday poll is anything to go by)  pour over every detail of what our English politicians are prepared to give to Scotland as part of any kind of settlement.

            

             According to the poll, the English resent the fact that the Scots have received more per head in public spending than have the English, who's taxes have paid for the £400 million  pound Scottish parliament; as well as made significant contributions to all forms of Scottish public spending including the Scottish NHS.

WE DO NOT NEED Scotland for anything other than for purely sentimental reasons to do with our monarchic attachment, and a 307 year connection. I am angry that our leaders are going almost cap in hand to save the Union. Do not get me wrong; I believe in the Union, but not at any degrading price. Besides which there are many advantages for the English in separation.

            

            The primary one is that England will finally get socialism off its back. If the Scots vote yes, then the Labour party will no longer inflict their incompetence in running an economy on the English people. I would have thought that this would have held a great appeal to the Conservative Party - but apparently it is not so.

            

            Remember it was the Labour Party that launched Scottish devolution in the first place and attacked the Tories for opposing it. The late lamented Labour leader John Smith, described his support for Scottish devolution as, 'the settled will of the Scottish people'. John Major, on the other hand said it would serve to become a road to final independence; while Labour believed it would have the opposite effect…who do you think has proved to have been right?

            

            It was the Labour party, under the leadership of John Smith, that set the whole devolution train in motion, partly fearful of losing the 40 Scottish seats Labour owned in Scotland.

IT IS ENGLAND, not Scotland, that is fully equipped to go it alone. Better together I say -  but if the Scots wish to separate then so be it. England at least, will be rid of a monumental  and destructive socialist entity which has greatly reduced the UK.

            

            Fanciful talk of changing the Union flag is the latest piece of whimsy orchestrated by the press. More accurate is the assertion that if the result next Friday is for independence, Cameron will most likely be chased from office by his own backbenchers: this in itself is likely to encourage many Scots to vote for independence this Thursday.

            

             If Scotland wishes to turn itself into northern Europe's Venezuela, and Alex Salmond into becoming its Hugo Chavez – then who are we to stop it. The Conservatives should be actively encouraging the Scots to go their own way, not crawling about on all fours pleading the case for devo max, which will turn out to be any easy ride to full independence in ten years time: Salmond knows this, which is why he will not be too disappointed if he were to narrowly lose, which is likely to be the optimum result the No campaign can expect.

            

             Scotland must remember that after the party comes the hangover  - and many Scots and English know what that feels like.

           

               

           

           

            

An independent socialist Scotland is the SNP purpose

THE IRONY IS, that Scottish independence will not work because it has allowed no room for a Conservative free market supporting party to fit in. What would emerge from Scotland going it alone would be a spending, taxing, borrowing economy, with a distaste for wealth creation, ambition, and individualism. It will nurture envy at every level, and drive Scotland's most ambitious souls south; as has always been the case in a socialist economy whose people are free to look elsewhere to fulfil their entrepreneurial ambitions (look at France today for instance).

           

            Its not that the Scots just hate for hates sake the English Conservatives; they hate what they believe they still represent to them  - supporters of the bosses and the aristocracy.  The former represented by a fat, top-hated, cigar smoking capitalist, while the latter is represented by an effete Louis XVI, bedecked in ermine, wearing a powdered wig and sporting a walking cane purely for effect. Both images have provided the standard text book villains representing the ruling classes for socialists.

            

             It is quite remarkable: socialism must now bare comparison in intellectual thought to the age of steam. Like steam, socialism should have, but has not, moved on since the 19^th century. In terms of political thought, every socialist experiment attempted has failed, and has wrought nothing but misery to the people living under its iron heel – especially within the Soviet Union, Chinese, Cuban, Cambodian, and currently the Venezuelan peoples.

           

              Like all utopia's which attempt to bend human nature to their will in order to seed, and harvest their ideas for the betterment of mankind; it usually ends in coercion, compulsion, and the Gulags. Socialism, in whatever garb it dresses itself up in; whether that of Communism or the more benign, yet equally disastrous social democracy that now plagues the EU; it will only end in political disillusionment brought about by economic bankruptcy.

THE SNP ARE nationalist socialists. They believe in Scottish national independence, where they believe Scotland can flourish as an independent nation state. But they also believe that the state should be the sole patron of within an independent Scotland. Social welfare, the NHS, and even business like BP can find themselves in thrall to socialism's age old fascination with nationalisation.

            

             Scottish independence will fail. Not because it is a bad idea in principle; but it represents a political monoculture of Left-wing prejudice and an intolerance of any private sector that seeks to make profits and create 'monstrous' millionaires. There is and never has been a flourishing socialist economy. But if Alex Salmond wishes to see Scotland go the way of Venezuela, another  socialist oil dependent economy; then let him realise his 'dream'.

           

            Those people of Scotland who are intent upon voting Yes; and those undecided's who will eventually vote Yes; and will tip the balance for Scottish independence will rue the day they did so?

            

            An independent Scotland is one thing; but one exposed to socialist ideology with no contrary ideological opposition, is doomed before it gets off the ground. As much as the Scots hate the English, as the nationalists would have us believe; the ordinary none-Londonistan centric English could not give a shit about Scottish independence.

            

             Let them go. Let them wallow in their own pyrrhic victory over the English.  Let them enjoy their socialist nirvana. The world moves on. England will continue, and begging letters in the Spectator for the Union to continue are a disgrace and an embarrassment. Let the Scots build their own socialist republic, as the Welsh have also tried to do at the English taxpayer's expense.

            

             But Scotland without the Union must fend for themselves. It is their choice, that after 307 years of resentment compiled against the English they will finally bring to bear what they say they want – independence. So be it; and let them get on with it. England will continue and form a compromise with human nature as Adam Smith believed in as the best way forward for an economy. But the Scots have turned their backs on the Scottish founder of modern political economy; and are now about to crown such foolishness by turning their back on the UK – if the vote is yes, I wish them well, but you cannot expect any favours if it all goes belly up.

The Scottish referendum and the FOGF that will attend Ukip's cause in 2017

UKIPPERS TAKE NOTE. What is happening to Alex Salmond and his Scottish Nationalists, will happen to Nigel Farage and UKIP if (and it is a big if) Cameron wins in 2015 and holds an In/Out referendum in 2017.

            

             What I am referring to is the onslaught from the media, politicians, businessmen and companies attacking Scottish independence. The fear of God, in this final week before the poll, is being put into the Scots. The Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyd's, and John Lewis, among others, have threatened to bring their businesses south, or increase their prices if there is a yes vote. While the head of the Bank of England fires yet another broadside across the bows of Scottish independence, warning that there cannot be a currency union without a loss of sovereignty (the very negation of national independence).

            

             The pace of the campaign of fear seems to have picked up since last Sunday when a Sunday Times poll gave the Yes vote a lead for the first time. A panic stricken assemblage of Londonistan political leaders finally woke up to the possible reality of a victory for Mr Salmond a week from today. After much nail biting and scratching of heads our political bantam weights decided to do what they have avoided throughout this campaign - to travel north into enemy territory, in order to humiliate themselves and the English by prostrating themselves before the Scottish electorate.

            

             Alex Salmond appeared over the moon, seeing the journey as a desperate attempt by Westminster to try and recover what he now believed was a lost cause.

GORDON BROWN was the first to promise the Scots all kinds of devomax goodies if they remained part of the Union. What authority he had to do such a thing mattered little because he knew Cameron, Milliband, and Clegg were considered no more welcome than a dose of syphilis north of the boarder by millions, if not all Scots. Gordon Brown could write whatever cheque he chose knowing that Westminster would not object if it kept the Union safe.

            

             Now it appears from the latest polls that the No campaign has recovered from what many now see as the Yes vote's high water mark; and all the panic that ensued and all the desperate pleading and promises of greater powers will prove to have been unnecessary. I believe, as I have always done, that the No vote would win, if only through the 'Fear of God Factor' (FOGF).

            

             Which brings us to a possible EU referendum in 2017; of which the unfolding events of fear that will have proved so successful with the Scots will be deployed once more, but of a far greater duration and greater intensity - with much more digging for dirt into Nigel Farage's past, of the kind which we saw throughout the media last May during the European elections when we witnessed such a mauling of a man's character, that we had never witnessed from the so-called popular press before.

            

            Thankfully the British public  saw such attacks for what they were. What the press did not realise is that their support for the political establishment was not shared by their readers; who, along with much of the British public have become disillusioned with the current party political setup at Westminster, were a social democratic triumphret rules the nation.

I HOPE AND BELIEVE that Nigel Farage and Ukip will take a lesson from the Scottish referendum, and learn from it if they have not already done so. In 2015, if Cameron wins in 2017, the FOGF will go nuclear. What we have witnessed during this Scottish referendum campaign from the English liberal establishment's attempt to keep Scotland 'safe' within the union is merely a dress rehearsal for what will be thrown at Ukip and Nigel Farage if the country is ever to be given a referendum on remaining in Europe.

            

             Those of us who oppose EU membership should study what forces were brought out against the SNP. The English establishment (and it is English) will also do whatever is required to keep the UK within the European Union, as they did to keep Scotland part of the Union. Think of the British liberal establishment as a river; but with many tributaries encompassing some two thirds of the media flowing from the main source; and all feeding off that source in one way or another as far as a settled status quo is concerned.

            

             The outsiders are the so-called Right-wing press who rightly challenge this liberal hegemony. But when it comes to Europe, they join forces with the liberalista in seeking to destroy Nigel Farage and Ukip. There is a sort of unspoken alliance between both the Right and Left of Centre; including the political centre itself. The Conservative Right's back benchers have put their misplaced faith in Cameron to negotiate a settlement with the EU, which they believe will allow this nation to remain a nation; unanswerable to any law other than that carved out by Westminster.

            

             Surely no one on the Eurosceptic benches of the parliamentary Conservative Party can seriously believe that such proposals will even be included as part of Cameron's negotiated settlement - let alone be accepted by Europe. But, nevertheless, such a settlement would have to serve as the minimal requirement for keeping the UK a sovereign nation state.

I BELIEVE IN THE Union, without it fragmentation will only follow. But Nigel Farage should be studying the tactics used against Salmond and his championing of Scottish independence and ignore the result, whatever it is. Ukip will have to counter far worse than the SNP have had to do from the liberal establishment if and when an EU referendum takes place -  it is better to be forewarned in order to forearm.

            

            Constitutionally speaking, we live in dangerous times. If Scotland votes for independence next Thursday, panic will once more grip the establishment; who have been ill-prepared (as ancient regimes throughout history often were) for a Yes vote. Complacency, arrogance, call it what you will – if we find ourselves, come next Friday, one nation short of a United Kingdom, then the Westminster political landscape will have suffered a tsunami. The emotional part of me would welcome such an outcome; but the sane and rational part believes that the Union has served all of its people well, and allowed the UK to prosper historically like no other nation on earth – and if that is not sufficient reason for voting NO, then there is no other.

           

                         

Labour must not be let off the hook for Rotherham

FOLLOWING THE JAY REPORT into the harrowing events in Rotherham; the Labour Party has suspended four party members from the town for their part in the scandal[1]. The four are Councillors Gwendolyn Russell and Shaukat Ali both suspended, as well as the council's former leader Roger Stone and ex-deputy leader Jahangir Akhtar, pending an investigation.

            

            This is indeed a meagre broth. When will there be a top to bottom investigation into the Labour Party regarding these events? Suspending local party pawns is not enough by far. The Labour Party created the climate that zipped thousands of mouths shut;  many of which that allowed these events to go unpunished for years. The Labour Party were the authors of political correctness that Cameron's Tory Party bought into, and the Liberal Democrats were natural franchisees of anyway.

            

            The Labour Party between 1997 and 2010 drove political correctness ever forward[2]. The success of Tony Blair cowered the Tory Party into submission regarding political correctness; what with the party's past associations with Enoch Powell and its many voters and party members who opposed immigration. The Tory Party was Christened the nasty party; and Cameron tried to create a New Tory Party as Blair had done with New Labour before him (but in both cases they destroyed the essence of what their respective parties were brought into being to do).

            

             Labour had 13 years in power, and the Tory Party were desperate to return the nation to what they believed had been the natural order that had existed before universal suffrage. So the Tory Party moved into the Labour Party and Lib Dem trenches and became social democrats one and all; and all that now remains is the meaningless pie-fighting with each other over the despatch box each and every Wednesday.

THE LABOUR PARTY  lost no opportunity in slapping down any criticism of immigration and multiculturalism with the usual admonishment  - racist. Its effect proved immediate as far as the Tories were concerned. Throughout the Labour years political correctness influenced the behaviour of local government, social services, education, and policing. The ordinary indigenous citizen was afraid to speak out for fear of falling foul of that other politically correct offspring…the much loathed and feared hate crime; which allowed no criticism of multiculturalism that mentioned either race or colour: or criticised other cultures for their uncivilised customs which the indigenous Western culture disapproves of as being medieval.

            

            All those Labour Party supporters who belong to Labour in Rotherham, whether on the council or within social services; or whether just part of the vast network of Labour functionaries enforcing political correctness in particularly northern Labour cities are all culpable. These cities, with their high immigrant demographic, the Labour Party now relies upon for protecting its Westminster seats: and they will contemplate whatever is asked of them by the immigrant population to keep every Labour northern seat at Westminster.

            

         Thus we have the real purpose of political correctness by Labour – to keep them in power. With the demise of the traditional industrial working class the Labour Party had to begin to look elsewhere – its talk of winning over middle England with a Blairite soft- conditioner, to replace the industrial working class, bore fruit. It kept the Labour Party in power for 13 years.

THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT, has to be brought to book for inventing and proceeding with political correctness, and advancing Multiculturalism. I continue to bang on and on about this because it seeps deep into my country's white indigenous culture and will eventually overwhelm it and leave the indigenous people of this country as enfeebled as are the native Americans of the USA.

            

             The Jay report was proof of what many of us always knew anyway. If the report had been completed under a Labour government it might have gone the same way as, for instance, the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq; or the BBC's Balen Report[3] - it would have been kicked into the long glass until it was no longer an embarrassment to the party or institution responsible.

             

             In the case of Rotherham it was the vehicle of political correctness of which the Labour Party were the primary architects that has led to this current scandal and will continue in the future for as long as political correctness is ingrained within all public institutions such as the educational establishment, the welfare state, NHS, police, and social work. Political correctness continues a-pace, and when the evil of Rotherham has been put to bed by the media; its viral impulses will continue within the state sector.

           

            In the meanwhile the Labour Party will be let off scot-free come the next election because so many of their northern working class supporters[4] still believe in the romantic idyll of the party that the likes of Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn believed in. They still believe in the ancient practices of socialism; and want to believe that Ed Milliband shares their beliefs.

            

            Not for the first time will what is left of the Labour voting working class be disappointed, if they elect Ed Milliband. Time after time, after time, have the white indigenous working class been let down by the Labour Party: and even after Tony Blair prematurely allowed open borders to all and sundry from Eastern Europe to come among us to undercut the indigenous working classes wages, enough of the white indigenous working class are still prepared to vote Labour next May…if only to defeat their class enemy - the Tories; who are no longer any such thing. It is truly bewildering what is happening.

             

---

[1] No doubt hoping to defer criticism from themselves.

[2] It reminded me of Chairman Mao's cultural revolution without the guiding principles of a little red book of comprising the chairman's thoughts,

[3] This report was commissioned by the BBC into the corporation's ant-Israeli bias, and has never been published.

[4] Support is still strong enough to give Ed Milliband an office he is dangerously  ill-equipped to oversee. His brother new this when he stood for the LABOUR PARTY leadership. But it looks as if we are likely to have a have a Marxist Ned Flanders leading our nation come next May's general election

The King family stood full square behind a family member, and should be supported

THE TAWDRY TREATMENT meted out to the King family beggars belief. Two state institutions have combined to cause the separation of a five-year-old child from his parents, in a country where the child cannot understand the language he is surrounded by…and the authorities accuse the parents of neglect?

            

            The NHS and Hampshire police have misrepresented the King family. Little Ashya's  parents were told by Southampton hospital that their sons' case was terminal; and the parents were then supposed to accept the doctors prognosis, and wait patiently for Ashya's end to come.

            

            Then the King family searched the internet and learnt of a treatment called Proton Beam Therapy, which, as I understand it, targets the tumour far more accurately (according to the media it is known as 'the sniper') than conventional methods which would also kill the healthy brain cells surrounding the tumour, which, if successful would leave the patient with brain damage.

            

             As far as the doctors at Southampton NHS were concerned Ashya's cause was hopeless; so in effect it should have mattered little if his parents removed him from the hospital where he would have just died in any event. It is like the E-bola virus – it is effectively a sentence of death. So why bother with any new treatment like any untested new vaccines being given to those with the virus?

            

             The logic seems to be that if part of the medical profession deems a case hopeless, a line should be drawn under it. We do not do this with E-bola, and neither should we do it with Proton Beam Therapy, that the King family learnt of on line, and looked into its possibilities – straws may have been clutched, but it was for the King's themselves to clutch them and seek out this one final hope for their son, and not for the state to try and stop them. They are prepared to pay for the treatment; and will not be dependent on the taxpayer - so why treat them as kidnappers?

            

             To the Kings this treatment offered hope, and as they could not get it from the NHS, they undertook to find it elsewhere, which they did. But it would come at a cost; according to some quotes I have read – £86,000.

           

             The Kings had a property in Spain which they went there to sell, or had already sold but went there to provided the necessary signature to conclude the sale. The sale was intended to pay for Ashya's proton beam treatment.

            

             The family were not ignorant of their son's needs as the Southampton hospital seem to have thought. They bought on-line the same food that was intravenously given to Ashya in Southampton, as well as the batteries needed for the appliance needed to feed their son.

            

              The family had done their homework before they rescued their son (it was more of a rescue than a kidnapping), and if they had been allowed at their own expense to give their son the treatment that Southampton NHS insisted was not applicable even if available, in Ashya's case; then this whole miserable and cruel episode could have resolved itself without the Kings having to remove their child (not the states) from the hospital.

IN THIS COUNTRY some 250,000 abortions are committed each year by the same medical profession that went to such great and cruel lengths to bring little Ashya home to die. While the police in Rotherham turned their back on 1400 children who were raped for fear of being called racist and upsetting the multicultural equilibrium; and, if today's press is correct helped produced 100 unwanted babies.

            

              Yet look at how the King family are being treated by these two state institutions? They are being criminalised in order to try and save their son's life, and to defy a bureaucratic closure that helps the hospital and the NHS move forward. They represent what this country once believed in - the family. The King's care more for human life, it seems, is greater than many in the NHS, who just follow procedures. It was not always like this in the NHS, but sadly it would dishearten its political founder, Aneurin Bevan if he could pay a 21^st century visit to his creation.

THE KING FAMILY acted to protect one of its members. To them family means everything[1]; to them the medical professionals were not gods when it came to their family's youngest member. Why should they just give up on the say-so of the medical professional? If they have the financial means to try to save their young son's life by paying for another form of treatment: what on earth is it to do with the state?

            

            If the King's believe that a very expensive magical potion only obtained from a plant in the Brazilian rain forests could save their son, and they were prepared to pay for it, what business would it be of Western medicine to intervene if they had already pronounced the patient's disease terminal.

            People have the right to spend their money as they see fit in such extreme circumstance as the King family found themselves in regarding their son – especially as they had already been told that their son has an inoperable and terminal cancer.   

            

            This whole business stinks to high heaven – I wish desperately that young Ashya King gets his Proton Beam Therapy; and I dearly hope, not only for his own sake, but also for the sake of his parents love; that the therapy (if they manage to arrange it) results in success.

            

             The King family did the right thing- the best for their child.

   

---

[1] As it once did the British as a whole