Jews Destroying Tory Party
The party has two chairmen:
Lord Feldman and
Grant Shapps, Jews both. Neither are Tories. Both are politicians who
stand against the average Conservative voter. When ordinary Tories opposed
gay marriage and membership of the European Union, Lord Feldman was widely
reported to have called them “swivel-eyed
loons.” His work in the party seems to involve funding its
elite, not safeguarding its traditions.
Antonio Gramsci, the leading communist said infiltrate from the top
down. They are two of The Enemy Within doing it.
Margaret Thatcher Was Very Bad for England Says Sean Gabb
Authoritarian? Yes. Spendthrift? She didn't get a grip of government waste.
Let the Hard Left into government? Yes. Good for
the working man? No.
Time to Stop Being Beastly to the Tories?
[ Hint: NO! ]
QUOTE
Last month, just before Christmas, I had a drink
with the director of a moderately important policy institute. After a few
comments about the dreadfulness of Tony Blair and his government, we fell to
discussing the Conservative Party. We were both impressed with Iain Duncan
Smith's performance as Leader, and felt cautiously optimistic about the
coming year. The Conservatives, we agreed, were not yet back in town, but
they were fast approaching the suburbs.
It is possible today, I think, to be less cautiously optimistic. The Conservative Party does seem to be back. It is defending traditional liberties like trial by jury against Labour attacks. It is abandoning its old obsession with what are falsely called "family values". It has proposed a workable replacement for the shadowy, discredited remnant that Labour has made of the House of Lords. It is making a radical critique of Labour's handling of health and transport; and in taking up the case of Rose Addis, it has found a way of simultaneously attacking almost every Labour vice - its incompetence, its arrogance, its dishonesty, its bullying, its siding with public sector workers against those who have to use their services, its general lack of human decency. The opinion polls are still showing the usual Labour lead, but I do not think they will do so for much longer.
Of course, this is how Conservative oppositions generally behave. They listen to the people, take up and champion their concerns, and sound refreshingly normal. Then they win an election and straightaway forget everything they claim to have learnt in opposition. I have written at some length elsewhere about the Quisling Right—those people who look and sound like conservatives, but who make sure never to threaten the anti-conservative forces that actually run the country—and will not repeat myself here. [ See Free Life Commentary , issue 50 ] But it may be that the only real difference between the Hague and Duncan Smith leaderships is the fluency and coordination of the lies.
All being said, there may be room for hope. Very likely, the Conservatives are back to their old game of implying more than they promise and of promising more than they intend to deliver. The brave talk now of civil liberties will not be remembered when they are back in office, and carrying forward the abolitions of due process began when they were last in office and continued under Labour. The talk of reducing the financial power of the State will also mean little once they have the means of trying to do it: any tax cuts they make will be balanced by increases elsewhere—so that, however more convenient they make it, the tax burden will be simply rearranged. As for Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, there is not even a promise here. But this does not necessarily make the Conservatives a hopeless cause. Every so often in the past century, the Conservative Party has found itself with a core agenda—a list of things that must be done if conservative politics and even the Conservative Party are to remain possible in this country. The agenda may not have been chosen by the Conservative Party: more often than not, it has been imposed by external pressures. But, once adopted, it defines and justifies the Conservative claim to be in power. This gives both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it silences the Quisling Right in all matters touching on the core agenda. It supplies a purpose and commitment that will let a government walk through crises that would uppo otherwise destabilise it. On the other hand, any essential compromise will almost guarantee collapse.
We can see this with the Conservatives between about 1975 and 1990. In opposition, they set up a cry about "elective dictatorship" and the growth of a socialist bureaucracy. In government, they put the Common Law though a legislative shredding machine and funded the rise of political correctness. They also variously lied and sleepwalked themselves three quarters into a European superstate. But these broken promises—or "aspirations"—were not part of their core agenda. That was about reforming economic management. They committed themselves to stopping the rise of taxes and spending of the past twenty years, to ending inflation, to forcing market discipline on the state sector, to curbing the power of the trade unions, to providing a climate in which private enterprise could begin to flourish again. And that is what they delivered without much compromise. Indeed, for all their dithering and betrayal in other areas, they faced their two greatest trials of nerve within the core agenda without flinching.
In 1981, the country was at the bottom of its deepest recession in fifty years. It seemed for the dissidents in the Thatcher Cabinet plain common sense to relax monetary policy. However, the medium term financial strategy came before apparent convenience. In the budget of that year, the Government cut borrowing and raised taxes. To do anything else would have stripped it of the intellectual legitimacy that, while intangible, was essential to its survival in office. Again, in 1984, there was almost certainly a compromise possible with the striking coal miners. But the new union laws had to be made to work—and made to work they were, regardless of social cost.
Whether or not they want it, the Conservatives now have another core agenda. This is getting the country out of the European Union. If the next Conservative Government delivers on this, it can count on a critical mass of solid and even impassioned support. If it fails to deliver, it will find that there are perhaps two dozen Conservative Members of Parliament and thousands of activists who define themselves as Eurosceptics first and as Conservatives a poor second. These will unhesitatingly split the Party and destroy the Government. And there are several million Conservative voters who will do nothing spectacular—until the next big day when their support is needed, and they sit out the day at home.
An intelligent Conservative leadership must be aware of this fact. What made the Conservatives under William Hague so worthless for Eurosceptics was that he did not seem to be aware of it. There is every chance that, had he won the 2001 election, he would have run off to Brussels and come back with a surrender on all essential matters—and then looked on astonished as his Government fell apart within weeks. I may be wrong, but I feel that Mr Duncan Smith does know his core agenda.
And there are many reasons to suppose that withdrawal would be very easy to sell to the electorate. Many pessimists refer to the 1975 referendum, when a two thirds majority for leaving was quickly turned into a two thirds majority for staying in. But circumstances are now greatly altered. British membership in the 1970s rested on four solid foundations. First, the Establishment was broadly in favour of membership. Second, it did seem there would be advantages from membership. Germany was still the "economic miracle" of Europe; France had recovered from its near-collapse of the 1950s; and even Italy was growing strongly. At the same time, the British economy was at best stagnant. It was easy to argue that joining would force reforms that could not otherwise be carried through. Third, the loss of sovereignty from signing the Treaty of Rome was more theoretical than actual. Whatever the words said on paper, they gave the central institutions in Brussels no practical control. Indeed, in the early 1980s, Britain and France followed exactly opposite economic policies without interference from the European Commission. Edward Heath may have signed a whole book of blank cheques in 1972, but very few of them were cashed in the next fifteen years, and never for amounts that most people thought much about. Fourth, and following form the above, public opinion was never more than languidly hostile to membership. A few lies and promises were enough to turn it round for the referendum.
Today, all four of these supports has given or is giving way. The Establishment is divided over continued membership. Second, there are no economic benefits. Whatever complaints a libertarian can make, the British economy has, by European standards, performed impressively well for many years. The main Euroland economies show every chance of settling into permafrost recession. So far as the economics are concerned, we are chained to a corpse dripping with germs that might easily infect us. As for the loss of sovereignty, we are no longer talking about giving up Commonwealth preference or banning prawn cocktail crisps, but about the Euro, Europol, the Corpus Juris, the Rapid Reaction Force, and the seizure of our private pension funds to save the Italian and German welfare states from bankruptcy. For these reasons—and because of an autonomous process of thought—public opinion is already half prepared to support withdrawal. An intelligent Conservative Prime Minister would have far less opposition to this than Margaret Thatcher had to the Medium Term Financial Strategy.
Just imagine. Mr Duncan Smith sets out for Brussels. He really want this country to stay in Europe, he might say reassuringly at his preparatory news conference. All we want of Europe, he adds, is acceptance that we shall never join the Euro, control over British agricultural policy, and the right to ignore all European Union laws and regulations that have not been fully debated and approved by our own democratically elected House of Commons. I can think of no convincing reply to something so eminently reasonable. Of course, the other European heads of government would think of none either. They belong to Establishments that have faced no serious opposition to their European policy, and which never have understood, nor will understand, the nature and depth of British hostility to being in a United States of Europe. Mr Duncan Smith could come home with a long, sad face, and ee could be out within six months of his taking office.
Some of my friends insist that Mr Duncan Smith is neither bright nor charming—and therefore never likely to win an election or doing anything worthwhile if he does win. These qualities may justly describe him, but they do not necessarily condemn. It takes no great intellectual skills to know what needs to be done about Europe, or how to do it. As for charm, William Hague had plenty of that, and look where it got him. It may be that Mr Duncan Smith's lack of superficial grace is at the moment a virtue. By not trying to compete on the Prime Minister's own ground, he is providing a clear and refreshing alternative.
Look at Mr Blair. He is not, I think, a very bad man. On a scale of evil that includes monsters like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, he does not even register. But he craves adulation and has not the strength of character needed to do without it when the public interest requires. For nearly the past five years, he has sprayed us and the world with a continual stream of childish and often contradictory platitudes. Because he is weak, he is dishonest. Because he is dishonest, his actions have too often produced consequences the opposite of what he may genuinely have desired. These consequences have ranged from bringing the country into ridicule and disrepute, to damaging the Constitution, to risking the lives of our servicemen in pointless and therefore immoral wars, and frequently to the massacre of foreign civilians. Give me the choice between a block of wood and someone whose behaviour and even looks remind me of a faded matinee idol, and I know which I would have.
I say again, I may be wrong. Perhaps the new Conservative leadership is
just waiting to turn as rotten as the last, and that to support it is the
same waste of time and effort. Certainly, those of us who are running our
own campaigns on the European issue should not give them up or put ourselves
under Conservative direction. But, looking at the past few weeks of
opposition, I do suspect the time may have come to stop being beastly to the
Tories.
UNQUOTE from
Time
to Stop Being Beastly to the Tories? by Sean Gabb
28th January 2002
Tory Rich List
Being rich and a Tory beats being poor.
Black Thief Kicked Out Of Legal Profession [ 20 June 2012 ]
QUOTE
The former Tory politician was last May jailed for 12 months after
cheating the public purse out of £11,277 with bogus claims for travel costs. He now has no income and has been struggling to find work after ‘losing
his good name’, the Bar Standards Board heard. The 59-year-old had retained his status as a barrister despite not having
practiced since he became a member of the House of Lords. Disbarring him for ‘conduct discreditable to a barrister’, Judge Nicholas
Riddell said the regulator ‘requires complete honesty and the greatest
integrity as regards all members of the bar.’......
Taylor was convicted of six counts of false accounting following a trial
at Southwark Crown Court last May.
UNQUOTE
The Tories ran him for Parliament to make it
look as though they like blacks but the good people of Cheltenham decided
they could get along without him. That is why the Tories made him a Lord. NB
that Tory is the Irish word for thief.
The monkey ancestry shows through.
Osborne Bribing 27 Million Voters [
10 March 2015 ] The Tories and Liberal Democrats are finalising a deal that would raise
the level at which people start paying income tax “towards £11,000” a year
from April, in a bid to win over workers on modest incomes. The move, a centrepiece of the budget on March 18, is designed to put
between £160 and £200 in voters’ pockets ahead of the general election,
boosting the chances of both coalition parties as the formal campaign kicks
off.
Cameron's Candidate Is A Pakistani Racist Inciting Crime To Win Votes
[
22 March 2015 ] And when the phoney [ sic ] rally was called off, the fiercely ambitious Amin, a Muslim, intended
to take credit for defusing the situation – winning over voters, and police,
in the marginal seat of Dudley North.
Theresa May
Boris Johnson Says London Would Fall Like Sparta Without Immigration
[
29 October 2015 ]
Tories Want Immigration [ 2 December 2015 ]
Tories Block Election Fraud Investigation [
29 May 2016 ]
QUOTE
GEORGE OSBORNE will use his
budget to offer an income tax giveaway for 27m voters and a “Google tax”
crackdown against multinationals that avoid tax in Britain.
UNQUOTE
27 million votes translate into a useful majority. Of course not
many people will be fool enough to be bought by that sort of money. It is
another case of rob Peter to pay Paul.
Labour bribes are much better; council houses, dole,
free medicine et cetera but they are only for
Third World aliens. Their
Vote Rigging
makes them much more effective.
QUOTE
A key Tory Election candidate was
suspended last night after plotting with far-Right extremists to stir up
racial hatred in a cynical bid to win votes.
Afzal Amin
hatched a scheme to persuade the English
Defence League to announce an
inflammatory march against a new £18million ‘mega-mosque’. But – as he
revealed in secretly filmed footage obtained by The Mail on Sunday – the
plan was that the demonstration would never actually go ahead.
UNQUOTE
Amin
has a decent background, a captain in the British
Army, Afghanistan, Iraq
etc. but he reverted to type. Recall that Cameron wants
England Run By A Pakistani also that
Cameron Alleges He Is Not An Enemy Of England. Believe him if you want.
PS You might feel inclined to ask Captain
Amin what the score is by
emailing
afzal@dudleyconservatives.com.
PPS He was part of
Muslim Success On Show At Harrow Mosque with others who haven't been caught
yet.
PPPS
Yahoo News has more and better details.
Is making
her bid to become England's next prime minister. She could be a good one.
The Telegraph aka The Quislinggraph has been
abusing her, a point in her favour.
Boris Johnson is a
liar, fool or ignoramus. Given that he went to Eton and Balliol where he
read Classics I am settling for the idea that he is a rogue with an agenda,
one who has forgotten most of what he ever knew about Greece.
PS This
article was in The Quislinggraph aka The Telegraph
but disappeared after someone pointed out in detail that
A Monkey In Silk Is A Monkey No Less.
It is seems that they allege that it is good for
the economy. They want cheap nannies, cheap butlers, cheap chauffeurs, cheap
everything while honest Working Men are paid
a pittance on the dole to do nothing. Even the economic perspective is beyond stupidity.
The Tories are bringing
Ethnic Fouling To England while
Angela Merkel,
Hollande,
Obama et al do it to the rest of
Western Civilization. It is
Genocide; it is Treason.
Business as usual. Corruption as usual albeit a twelvemonth should be
enough to sort out election expense fraud.
PS There are
29 Expense Investigations Going On
Perhaps not. Hasn't Labour betrayed us even
more?
Illegal Immigration? Labour loves it.
European Union?
Heath, a Marxist
Paedophile got us in by Treason At Maastricht.
Labour tried to keep us there.
Tories Stop Pretending To Control Immigration [
21 July 2016 ]
Tories Inflicting 20 Thousand More Third World Chancers From Syria On Us
[ 22 July 2016 ]
Can this possibly be true? The Main Stream Media
have said nothing. Go to
Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Programme or
Third Country
Resettlement
ex Wiki to know we are being betrayed again.
Tories [ read that as
Capitalist Swine ] want cheap
labour. The Labour Party wants
Pakistanis for their
Vote Rigging expertise. All political parties are controlled by
Puppet Masters, the
Zionist crazies who want Immigrants
As Weapons, to cause Ethnic Fouling &
Genocide, to destroy
England & Western Civilization.
It follows that The Telegraph is right.
Why are Syrians refugees? One reason is Cameron
attacked
Syria, allegedly protecting nice Arabs from the
naughty ones. He caused the problem. Having the Russians attacking their
naughty ones doesn't help. Their naughties are Cameron's nice ones and vice
versa. Can he tell
the difference? Does he care? No. He is a tool being used by the
Puppet Masters to bully Arabs generally but
we get saddled with Cameron's victims. He cares not but he pretends that
importing them is an act of virtue.
Margaret Thatcher Was Very Bad for England Says Sean Gabb [ 2
September 2016 ]
When she died in April 2013, the mainstream assumption
was that Margaret Thatcher had been something like the kind of person Donald
Trump is hoped to be. She had humbled the left. She had brought about
fundamental reforms in economic policy. She had made her country strong
again and respected in the outer world. This being the assumption,
conservatives went into ostentatious mourning, and the leftists rejoiced.
I am aware that one of her personal friends is in this room, and I will say now, for the avoidance of the slightest doubt, that I will speak no ill of her personal character, which appears to have been singularly plain and honest for a British politician. I do not, even so, share the assumption that was general at the time of her death. I will, in the time allowed me, give my settled opinion, which is that, in no sense, was Margaret Thatcher a conservative – let alone a libertarian – hero. Rather, she was, in every sense, the midwife of the leftist police state that is modern Britain.
I begin with her economic policies. When she came to power in 1979, the British Government was running a large budget deficit. This debt was routinely monetised, and the country had known double digit inflation for much of the previous decade. The trade union movement was very strong. It used its strength to demand regular cost of living wage increases for its members, regardless of local circumstances. It also resisted structural changes in manufacturing industry without which wage increases in real terms could not be sustained. Mrs Thatcher’s solution to these problems was disastrous.
You end that kind of inflation by cutting government spending. You shut down a few ministries, and apply real cuts to the salaries of the state employees who remain. She did neither of these things. Instead, she allowed and encouraged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise interest rates to the point where much manufacturing industry found it impossible to borrow. A further effect was a rise in sterling on the foreign exchanges that made our exports uncompetitive. Between 1980 and 1983, about a quarter of British industry disappeared. Unemployment rose past three million, and, bearing in mind all the statistical tricks to hide the true rise, may have gone far beyond that. This unemployment did not come substantially down until the middle of the 1990s, and that fall was largely because many of the long-term unemployed were ageing, and could be moved from unemployment benefit onto their old age pensions.
The effect was to destroy the industrial working class as it had emerged in the nineteenth century. I will try not to romanticise these people. They elected and gave firm support to trade union leaders who resisted all attempts at modernisation, and who were often sympathetic to, or even in the pay of, a hostile foreign power. At the same time, the working classes were our people, and virtually the whole cost of ending the inflation was put on them. The old system of skilled and semi-skilled industrial labour had given dignity to millions of working class people, and both the financial security and general autonomy that allowed them full exercise of the freedoms associated with liberal democracy. At a stroke, they were reduced to the clients of a mean and capricious welfare system, or pushed into menial jobs without security. There was a corresponding rise in divorce, illegitimacy, various kinds of substance abuse, and in political apathy, and in superstition, and in a tendency to witch-hunting hysteria against whoever was described in the media as the monster of the day. This should not have been surprising. It is what always happens when people find that the bottom has dropped out of their world – especially when they know that the authorities have, more or less deliberately, knocked the bottom out of their world.
I appreciate that, in our movement, talk of economic equality is not popular. But, given that we are where we are, and that most actually existing élites owe their positions to less than natural merit, there is a case for avoiding policies that throw large masses of our people into pauperism. Certainly, I spent the first decades of my life in a country where inequality was diminishing, and have spent the rest in a country where it has grown increasingly obvious and accepted. I, for one, know which I preferred.
Who were the beneficiaries of these policies? Not, I tell you, the traditional entrepreneurial class. If the headline rates of income tax were cut – the standard rate from 35% to 25%, the top rates from 98% and 83% to 40% – the overall burden of tax as a percentage of gross domestic product was about the same when Margaret Thatcher left office in November 1990 as when she came in. Hardly anyone had paid the old top rates. A mix of inflation and slower rising thresholds brought many more into the new top rate. If the more obvious regulations were abolished – price controls, for example, and exchange controls – there was a steady growth of other regulations. Tax collection became increasingly rapacious and impenetrable. Health and safety laws became a serious check on business, without making people noticeably more safe or healthy at work. There was an unchecked growth of money laundering laws and, toward the end of the 1980s, of environmental protection laws.
The beneficiaries were workers of all kinds in the state sector, and workers in the service sector – above all those who worked in the City of London after the financial institutions had been transformed into globalised casinos. The problem with the service sector is that, generally speaking, it gives secure and well-paid employment to small minorities at the top. Everyone else is decidedly menial and insecure. I touch again on my point about the undesirability of economic inequality.
But I turn to the state sector. At any time, it would have been unjust to spare this from the costs of ending an evil mostly thrown up by its own growth. But the 1980s were not any time. Mrs Thatcher was always keen on identifying enemies and marking them for destruction. There is a case for this in principle. Her problem was that she consistently identified the wrong enemies. Near the top of her demonology was a group of men who had known the unemployment of the 1930s, and perhaps fought on the Communist side in the Spanish Civil War, and who thought it would be a fine thing if the supermarkets could be nationalised. These were a nuisance, especially when they also happened to be trade union leaders. But, if a nuisance, they were not an existential threat. There was another group – a much younger and more diverse group – who, because they wore suits and drank mineral water, she regarded as barely a nuisance, but who were an existential threat.
Call these people what you like – the totalitarian humanists, the Cultural Marxists, the New Left, the neo-puritans, the Enemy Class: there is still no agreed name for them, though we all recognise them when we see them. As with their name, their fundamental nature remains controversial. Are they disciples of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School? These are the people they read at university, and whose terminology they use. Or are they really the latest manifestation of Anglo-American Puritanism? On the one hand, Gramsci and Marcuse had no interest in regulating sex and sexuality, and would have scratched their heads at the War on Smoking. On the other, the people I am discussing have no particular belief in God. There is room for continuing debate on these people. One thing, however, is clear. During the 1980s, they were moving upward in the state sector and in education and all the other sectors funded by the State, and they were growing to dominance in the media. They had no interest in controlling the price of bread, and cared nothing about the white working class. What they wanted was to get inside our heads and to remake us as a people in their own lunatic and evil image. They would do this in the first instance by their control of education and the media. If allowed, they would do it by direct control of the State.
What else is clear is that Mrs Thatcher and her ministers did absolutely nothing to slow their colonisation of the state sector and its associated bodies.
Indeed, they did worse. By 1979, if not so fervently as the Thatcherites, I accept that the trade unions were out of control. The Thatcherite answer, however, was to place the union movement in a legal straitjacket where the older style of trade union official was unable to operate. In consequence, the unions were taken over by university graduates who knew how to make the new system work in their own interests – university graduates, I hardly need add, whose nature and opinions I have already mentioned. Too concerned with her war against Arthur Scargill and his friends – a war in which the traditional working class was collateral damage – she did all but roll out the red carpet for those who later became the friends of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.
Foreigners often wonder how the revolutionary changes made after 1997 by Tony Blair could have been so swift and seemingly irreversible in a country so conservative as England. My answer takes me into a brief digression on the nature of the English Constitution.
For Americans in particular, a constitution is a set of words on paper. Matters of right and wrong in government policy are discussed in terms of how it is legitimised by the explicit wording of a document written in the eighteenth century. This is for me a most alien style of argument, and that is why I find conversation with American conservatives and even libertarians often so tiresome. Properly seen, the constitution of a county [ country? ] emerges from the settled nature of its people. Replace the people, and, obviously, a new constitution will emerge. Over time, the concerns of even a settled people will change in line with new circumstances, and so the constitution will change.
Within this loose framework, radical or ill-considered breaks from what emerged in the past will be prevented, or perhaps slowed, by fixed constitutional rules. This, I grant, justifies much American discussion of exactly what was settled in the 1780s. At the same time, a written constitution is always open to reinterpretation. For example, the first and second sections of the American Bill of Rights appear at present to hang on who nominates the next Judge in the Supreme Court. In America, it is less important who makes the rules than who interprets them.
England has no written constitution. The long stability of our institutions rested instead on a sense of tradition, or an imagined sense of continuity with the distant past. If, in 1980, you had asked the average Englishman to justify trial by jury, his answer might have been that it was a useful check on political justice, and something about the unwisdom of allowing case-hardened judges sitting alone to decide matters of disputed fact. More likely, the justification would have been that trial by jury had existed since at least the thirteenth century – which effectively meant it had existed forever – and that abolishing it would therefore be as unwelcome and outrageous as trying to metricate the clock and the calendar. I suspect this is also the case in America. Once you get behind the verbiage about what such and such a clause of the Constitution says and what it means, you pass to an instinctive belief in not changing what has been long settled. The main difference between our countries is that we avoid the verbiage – and we maintained a free constitution, I will add, for about twice as long as America has existed.
Now the body of customary rules and assumptions and expectations that make – or made – up the English Constitution has no hold on the imagination as a set of individual parts, but as an undifferentiated mass. Everything is connected to everything else, and everything supports everything else. Trial by jury has always existed. So has the English system of weights and measures. So has the wearing of horsehair wigs in court, together with names like “bailiff” and “sheriff” and “plaintiff.” Abolish and make radical changes to any one, and the others are weakened. Make sufficiently radical changes in a short enough time, even to supposedly incidental parts of the constitution, and the fundamental parts may come to be seen as so much clutter from the past, to be cleared away in the supposed interest of fairness of efficiency. The Tory case against constitutional reform in the early nineteenth century can be expressed in one sentence by Lord Eldon: “Touch one atom, and the whole is lost.”
Before about the 1960s, however, constitutional change in Britain was either organic, in the sense that new meanings were, by unspoken consent, attached to ancient forms, or carried through with a decent regard for the unamended remainder. The genius of the Victorian reformers was that they made radical changes to the substance of the Constitution without touching the surface forms; and even the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which were probably their most fundamental break with the past, were soon absorbed into the perception of an unchanged structure. By 1901, only legal scholars or older lawyers were aware that the courts had ever worked differently.
The Thatcher Government made a century of changes in eleven years. These were carried through with an almost gloating disregard for the proprieties, and were generally to enhance the power of the State. We were given pre-publication censorship for the first time in three hundred years, and a real War on Drugs, and ex-post facto criminal laws, and punishment without conviction or trial, and reversals of the burden of proof in criminal cases. The ancient right to peremptory challenge of jurors was abolished, together with the ancient right of an inquest jury to find a general verdict. The rights to political speech and association were curbed. The agreed rule that police officers were civilians employed and given uniforms to do what everyone else had the right to do was swept aside for the creation of an increasingly armed pro-State militia.
And, talking of militias, it was the Thatcher Government that disarmed us. The Firearms Acts 1920 and 1968 only regulated the right to keep and bear arms. So long as you knew how to fill out the right forms, and what public admissions to avoid, you could have as many guns and as much ammunition as you wanted. The Firearms Act 1988 was our first substantive step to victim disarmament.
I passed my twenties denouncing these changes. I denounced them as bad in themselves, and bad so far as they weakened the cohesion of our ancient constitution. I said they formed precedents for an even more dictatorial future government. I was called a fool and told that the changes were needed to maintain firm and efficient government. Or I was referred to the words of the neo-Marxist Martin Jacques about “a free market in a strong state.” No one paid attention to my reply that there was no free market, and that government was not made observably more efficient.
The volume and speed of change intensified after Mrs Thatcher resigned in 1990, and the Major Government was probably our most authoritarian since the 1680s. In 1997, the Blair Government came in. It found the entire Constitution already broken apart. No work of undermining was needed. This was a government predominantly of the people I have mentioned. It was the work of only three years to clear away the broken mass of our Constitution and create the new order under which we now find ourselves.
In 2001, I had lunch with an old university friend. He complained that the Blair Government was the nearest thing England had ever seen to a Jacobin revolution. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. The Blair Government was Napoleon, creating a new order to replace what had already been destroyed. The Jacobins had been the Thatcher and Major Governments. They had destroyed the ancient constitution. They were the ones who had broken what Walter Bagehot called “the cake of custom.” Every precedent of importance had been set by the Thatcher Government.
When I came out as a libertarian in 1977, I thought it reasonable to support the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher. I joined the Party. I took time off my A-Level revision to campaign in the 1979 general election. I hailed the Conservative victory as a new dawn for English liberty. After much head-scratching over the next three years, I had a fresh burst of enthusiasm when the Falklands War began. I spent that war jumping up and down with a Union Flag in each hand. I believed Mrs Thatcher’s libertarian and conservative rhetoric. I was not alone. The millions who voted Conservative in 1979, 1983 and 1987 believed that the country was being saved. I was earlier than most in my disillusion, though not so early as I now feel I should have been. I also took the trouble to write it down at the time. But it is now thirty seven years since Mrs Thatcher became our Prime Minister. That is long enough to see her in perspective. She was no champion of liberty. She was no Ron Paul. Assuming he is what I am assured he is, she was no Donald Trump. She pushed through – or, on the most charitable estimate, she unwittingly fronted – the transformation of our wonderful and beloved England into a sinister foreign country.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned her foreign policy. That, however, would be another speech in itself. It is enough to say that, by the time she left office, she had done what every previous British Government since 1945 had carefully tried to avoid. She turned us into an American satrapy. If, before then, it had required American consent, hardly one bullet left the gun of a British soldier by 1990 but on American orders. What she called making Britain strong in the world amounted to nothing more than making us the more efficient servant of a foreign power – and, I would add, a foreign power hostile to our true interests as a nation.
Oh, and no mention of the European Union either – something else she did much to promote, before and after she became Prime Minister.
And so I do not admire Margaret Thatcher. She competes with Tony Blair for the status of our worst peacetime Prime Minister in the century since 1914. For the reasons I have explained, she may have been worse than Tony Blair. I ask you to look through what she promised and then claimed to have delivered. Look through the blast of hot air that attended her death three years ago. Look at what she did. By their fruits ye shall know them, said Christ. She was a corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, the bitter taste of which may never leave our mouths.
Tory MP Claimed Driving Expenses In England While He Was In Australia
[ 12 December 2016 ]
Another Tory, another thief. To be fair, Tory
is the Irish word for thief.
Tories Ahead In Poll [
30 April 2017 ]
QUOTE
Theresa May used her first campaign visit to Scotland yesterday to
dismiss Nicola Sturgeon’s claim that she would agree another
independence referendum if the SNP won on June 8. The Prime Minister refused to support Ms Sturgeon's
suggestion that her opposition to holding another vote on
breaking-up Britain will “crumble to dust” if the SNP take
most seats north of the border.
Mrs May instead said she would only allow a new vote if
there was clear evidence that the people of Scotland wanted
one - something not currently the case according to
polls.
UNQUOTE
Theresa May is on course to win while
Comrade Sturgeon will
carry on being an irritant. Scots rejected independence a few years ago. Giving
them another go just might shut Sturgeon up for a while.
Crown Prosecution Service Might Charge Tory MPs With Expense Fraud [ 10 May
2017 ]
PS Crown Prosecution Service
will not charge BBC with inciting racial hatred
against Englishmen contrary to
Part III
of the
Public Order Act 1986. This is government policy and a
Perversion Of The Course Of
Justice. They give Pakistanis a pass too.
Real Tories Should Join Nigel Farage, Not May Or Corbyn
[ 3 May 2019 ] The nonsensical, insulting implication is that those who want to leave the EU
are as thick, uneducated, and prejudiced as their “progressive” opponents love
to claim; gullible fools who only care about ending “free movement”. Fobbing off such half-wits should be easy: just sign a deal, any deal that can be spun as delivering on this one symbolic goal, and they will flock back gratefully.
QUOTE
It is a question
that needs asking: does Theresa May actually
think that Brexit voters are stupid?
She is certainly
behaving that way, apparently convincing herself that the Eurosceptic electorate
will welcome
any deal she cooks up with Jeremy Corbyn, however appalling, as long as she
labels it “Brexit”.
UNQUOTE
Even
The Telegraph has taken the point that the woman is
a dangerous fool - and that is on the kindest view.
Disastrous Tory Results Could Knock Some Sense Into Them
[ 5 May 2019 ]
QUOTE
"Never glad confident morning again” was the line quoted
at Macmillan about the Profumo scandal, applied to John
Major after the departure from the Exchange Rate Mechanism,
and which now hangs over Theresa May as an epitaph as her
time as Prime Minister ebbs away.
Local election results,, which have been especially weak
in Somerset, are a symptom of a party that has forgotten how
to govern, why it wants to govern and what it promised
voters when offering its services to govern...............
There was no understanding that the best interests of the collective are served by the free choices of individuals, rather than the socialist ideal that the best interests of the individual are served by the orders of the collective................
Forgetting what was promised is the greatest sin. Cynics may even think that the promises were never really meant in the first place [ Not by May clearly - Editor ]. This is the most corrosive view, with a destructive effect both upon trust in politicians in general and in a particular party’s support. Recent history shows how devastating a loss of trust can be and how quickly apparently safe seats can be lost.
The Prime Minister promised to deliver Brexit, she said we would leave on 29 March, that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, that Brexit means Brexit and that we would leave the Customs Union and the Single Market. None of this has happened and as the Liberal Democrats were punished for capitulation on tuition fees so the Tories suffered at the local elections................
The
Tory party needs to be the Brexit party and to win back all
those who are planning to support Nigel Farage and my sister,
Annunziata Rees-Mogg, at the European elections. To do so
will show the path to a clean Brexit. This is not to deny that
the current House of Commons has set its face against leaving
the European Union properly and wants to remain at least
semi-attached, but Parliament against the people cannot work for
long. Voters will not tolerate such a state of affairs.
UNQUOTE
Jacob
Rees-Mogg writes clearly and sensibly. He is worth reading
in full.
May And Corbyn Colluded In Treason - Voters Fight Back
[ 5 May 2019 ]
Tory Treason
[ 17 June May 2019 ]
The Tories Are Unfit For Any Honest Purpose [ 23 June 2020 ]
The newspaper and various people are calling for the woman to be sacked. It
is, I allow, surprising for someone to hold a job that involves conserving
the past, and then to advise an insurrectionary mob on how to destroy the
past. This being said, and assuming the story is substantially true, Mrs
Odent is less to be blamed for giving her advice than those who employed her
as an expert on conservation and its opposite.
We have had a Conservative Government since 2010. We have had a Conservative
Government with a working majority since 2015. For the past six months, we
have had a Conservative Government with a crushing majority. It all counts
for nothing, because the Conservatives themselves are useless.
Political power is not purely, nor mainly, a matter of being able to make
laws. It is far more a matter of choosing reliable servants...............
Ever ready to pose as the spokesman for a disenfranchised majority, Andrew
Rosindell, the Conservative Member for Romford, announced that the spreading
wave of vandalism was being driven by “a politically-correct gang of
anarchists who hate everything about this country.” Fair enough, so far as
these people do hate England. But this is not an insurrection of anarchists
– not even the kind who like the power to destroy. It is an insurrection
driven by the wealthy and the well-connected. Mrs Odone is the daughter of
an American college president and the wife of a banker. She is part of a
network of the rich who feel no twentieth century shame about their wealth,
so long as they believe and act on their beliefs in a repeat of the Chinese
Cultural Revolution. And they have been given the power to make this
revolution by Conservative Governments.........
And a Conservative Government that, last December, swore blind it would
stand by us has abdicated what little control it might still have. If
disappointment is reasonable, we have no reason to be shocked. The
Conservatives are, and always have been, unfit for any honest purpose.
Sooner or later, I have no doubt – if it has not already happened – Mrs
Odent and Boris Johnson will meet at some smart dinner. They will get on
very well. Why not? She may despise him. Being herself intelligent, she has
no choice. Being intelligent, though, she can also be sure that, unlike the
average reader of The Daily Mail,
he is not her enemy.
Tory Government Panders To Left Wing Subversives [ 16 September
2020 ] But now a rapper himself has been rapped. I doubt that many Salisbury
Review readers would have heard of Wiley, but he was highly regarded as
the pioneer of ‘grime’ rap, being awarded a MBE. The trendy Guardian
clearly didn’t know him either, erroneously featuring a picture of Kano,
another black artist, in an article on racism by Owen Jones. This blunder
was like a 1980s football commentary, when mistaken identities were excused
as ‘they all look the same’. The reason for Jones’s interest was the recurrent theme of Jews
controlling the world, tweets on which Wiley doubled down in a Sky News
interview. He was suspended from social media platforms, a police
investigation was launched, celebrities boycotted Twitter for two days, and
home secretary Priti Patel added her tuppence worth to the condemnation. Wiley’s tirade was referring to the rich and powerful rather than Jewish
people generally................... As the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn discovered, any criticism of
Israel or Zionism is verboten nowadays. Yet some ugly anti-Semitism
passes unnoticed by mainstream media. Around the same time as Wiley’s rant,
the Times exposed the Facebook postings of Heshmat Khalifa, a
director of the largest British Muslim charity Islamic Relief Worldwide.
Having tweeted that Jews are ‘the grandchildren of monkeys and pigs’,
Khalifa resigned. But there was nothing on the BBC about this. As Charles
Moore remarked, ‘imagine how it would have reacted if a director of
Christian Aid had said the same things’. Jews Buy Tories, Jews
Buy Labour
[ 18 October 2021 ]
Nigel Farage started UKIP to
get us out of Europe. UKIP went off so he is using
the Brexit Party to beat
May's treachery,
Comrade Corbyn's nasty power grab, their
collusion & incompetence.
Sean Gabb, England's leading libertarian
explains the determination of the Tories to destroy
Brexit as they destroy any pretence of
Democracy. It is Treason, it is de facto
Mutiny against the
people; call it Trahison des Clercs if
you will. The Tories also collude with the Hard
Left in helping Illegal Immigrants.
Further that Johnson is an idle, treacherous fornicator. Will he follow
May in cheating us?
QUOTE
According to
The Daily Mail, Madeline
Odent is the Curator of the Royston Museum in Hertfordshire. This museum is
funded by Royston Council. In the past few days, Mrs Odent has taken to
Twitter, giving expert advice on how to use household chemicals to cause
irreparable harm to statues she dislikes.............
UNQUOTE
Boris Johnson is no friend of England; he is
one of the Enemy Within, deliberately importing
vicious Third World parasites full of hate
like the Pakistani Perverts raping
English girls with the connivance of police and politicians. It is
Trahison des Clercs. Vote
Tory, not me, not ever again.
QUOTE
While the BBC excises classic comedies and variety shows from its archives
for [ allegedly ] offensive racial stereotypes, the musical genre
of rap has seemed immune to cancel culture. Glorifying drugs, misogyny and
violence, its lyrics are a profusion of the ‘n’ word [ the current euphemism
for Nigger ] ‘motherf******s’.
If you were to quote these verbal volleys on Twitter you would risk a ban,
or perhaps a knock on your door by the Old Bill.
UNQUOTE
One reason why foul mouthed blacks are allowed to incite their own via "music"
is that they are being used by Jews on the make. Recall that
Comrade Corbyn was abused as an
Anti-Semite then replaced by
Keir Starmer, who is married to a Jew.
Buy both sides to guarantee a win. It works for Jews. Perhaps we should
too.
Tories Using Illegal Immigrants For Cheap Labour And Ignoring Migration Watch
[ 22 November 2021 ]
QUOTE
The shambles on the beaches of Kent are a daily reminder of the growing
chaos in our asylum and
immigration system. Some of us have seen it coming.
Next month marks 20 years since I founded Migration Watch, a small think-tank aiming to set out the facts on immigration in a way the public would understand. For two decades we have issued warning after warning about the scale of change facing Britain and its consequences. It is now clear we were consistently right.
It is also clear, however, that there have been powerful forces at work,
including corporate greed and relentless political sleight of hand. And so
we find ourselves where we are today.
UNQUOTE
Lord Green, is spot about corporate greed.
Capitalist Swine want cheap labour. He
said:-
QUOTE
The massive expansion of immigration was no accident
UNQUOTE
But he does not name the perpetrators or mention treason. Think of politicians,
left and right to know. Johnson &
Patel claim they are trying to stop them while
Starmer Pledges to care about their dignity. The Labour Party allows
Pakistani Perverts
to rape English girls in Rotherham etc. as a quid
pro quo for Vote Rigging.
Tory Scum Betraying Us - Business As Usual
[ 18 January 2022 ]
QUOTE
Before deleting it all, I have just skimmed the contents of my junk folder.
One of the messages is from the
Bruges Group, and is New Year greetings from the 2nd January.
The message from
Barry Legg, a former Conservative Member of Parliament begins:
Well, we are still waiting to get Brexit done.
I should have deleted it all unread. The only effect this has had is to move me to another polemic when I have more productive and nowadays more enjoyable uses of my time. But I did read Mr Legg’s message. Here is my response to it....................
This sort of thing may cheer up a few pensioners who look back to the 1980s as a golden age. I purged it from my e-mail software without so much as a bored sniff. What our rulers want of England is a big financial casino with shops and grouse moors and a few pretty things to look at. What we want is of no importance to them. We ourselves are of no importance to them, except as cooks, cleaners, drivers, jesters and providers of associated services.
There is, I admit, an important division
between our rulers. There are those whose most visible representatives are
in or clustered about the
Royal Family, and who want us kept cold and in rags, given a culinary
choice of veganism or processed bug pulp. There are those less delusional or
stupid, who realise that someone needs to buy the things or pay the taxes
that enrich them, and that there should be a broadly market order. But,
stupid or greedy, they all agree that we are to have no say is how our
country is run – and indeed are to be stripped of anything approximating the
country we used to think we had.
UNQUOTE
Sean Gabb, England's leading libertarian
explains his sincere, in depth loathing of the Tories,
who are inflicting Third World parasites on us
with Malice Aforethought. What does
the Conservative Party conserve apart
from its own advantages? Nothing. Sir Roger
Scruton explains Conservatism, an alien
concept to p
Johnson, Cameron, Heath, Patel,
May et al, ad nauseam.
Tories Plot To Replace Liz Truss And Kwasi Kwarteng With Rishi Sunak And Penny Mordaunt
[ 16 October 2022 ]
QUOTE
The little-remembered George Canning holds the record for the shortest term in
office of any UK prime minister. He was in power for just 119 days in 1827
before dying from tuberculosis and setting an unwelcome record that has stood
for almost 200 years - until possibly now.
Liz Truss would have to hold on to No10 until the New Year to beat his tenure. But Backbenchers are reported to be discussing replacing her and Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng after a mere 37 days in No10. It has been little more than a month but that period has been one of the most tumultuous in recent history, a period not notably short of political crises.
The economic turmoil caused by Kwarteng's mini-Budget less than three weeks ago led to the pound diving, a major intervention by the Bank of England to rescue the gilt market and soaring interest rates for homeowners.
And reversing the broad swathe of unfunded tax
cuts blamed for the carnage - as they are expected to do as early as today -
may not be enough to prevent Tory MPs from acting.
UNQUOTE
The
Mail's commentators are all over the place.
Tory MPs Sacking Liz Truss Could Cost 400 Their Seats
[ 19 October 2022 ]
QUOTE
On Sunday the Trades Union Congress announced the striking results of
their MRP poll conducted with Opinium, predicting a 411-seat Labour
landslide. The results were pored over by SW1’s Twitter pundits and sent
shivers down the spines of Tory MPs.
Although The Guardian
published the names of Cabinet ministers to lose out, Guido has done the
public service duty of digging through the data to put the names to each
constituency that switched hands in the poll. Strap
yourself in, it’s a long list…
UNQUOTE
As Guido says: It is a long list. The
Tory plan is to get rid of Liz without the
nuisance of a General Election; Democracy be
damned. They hate it and Free Speech too.
New UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak A Triumph For Globalists, Immigration Enthusiasts. Of Course, UK May Not Survive—But, Like US, Ruling Class Hates It Anyway, by James Kirkpatrick
[ 27 October 2022 ]
QUOTE
The Conservative (“Tory”) Party has been in power in the United
Kingdom for 12 years, with a long line of forgettable Prime
Ministers surfing over restive voters who demanded
Brexit, reduced
immigration, and more national sovereignty [How
long have the Conservatives been in power and who were the Prime
Ministers, by Caroline Westbrook, Metro,
October 20, 2022]. But in what can only be considered pure spite on
the part of the British Ruling Class, the UK will now be governed by
a caricature of Politically Correct “Conservatism”—an Indian hedge
fund manager, Rishi Sunak, who used to work at
Goldman Sachs and is
worth more than King Charles III [Rishi
Sunak, the new UK prime minister, is yet another Goldman Sachs
alumnus, Business Insider, October 24, 2022].
Almost as if on purpose, the Conservative Party has broken apart its
winning coalition to pursue policies that favor no one except
Sunak’s former colleagues. Gleeful Labour supporters and Celtic
separatists are poised to inherit frustrated working-class voters
and the existence of the Union itself is in jeopardy. Underpinning
all of this: the baffling, enraging, and totally self-defeating Tory
policy of increasing immigration in direct defiance of what voters
want.
Let’s recall that the major reason the United Kingdom has an immigration problem now is that Labour deliberately opened the gates to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,,” to use Labour apparatchik Andrew Neather’s phrase. That’s about as close to a smoking gun in the “Great Replacement” debate as can exist: the Labour Party wanted to replace the British electorate. It did this as a conscious choice. It was treason.
What’s remarkable is that the Tories now want to rub their own voters’ noses in the filth, with outgoing PM Liz Truss running against immigration during the leadership race and then promptly calling for more immigration afterward........
It's not (just) that Sunak is Indian or that the Tories have open contempt for their voters, it’s that England itself seems to have utterly lost its identity, with British identity consisting of no more than a passport [Sangita Myska dismantles caller’s claim that Rishi Sunak ‘isn’t even British,’ by Adam Solomons, LBC, October 22, 2022]. Having lost their faith and their Empire and having opened their doors to the Third World, British identity has become a costume. England itself is just a neutral battleground between brawling mobs of non-Europeans [Why are mobs fighting on the streets in Leicester, UK, The Indian Express, September 21, 2022]..............
Yet, amazingly, the Tories have undone their victory. Matthew Goodwin, one of the best scholars of National Populism, reports that the Conservatives have failed to win over the new voters they attracted in 2019 with their pro-worker, patriotic message..........
You can’t reason with people who won’t even support their own political survival. There are many reasons why they are so determined to destroy the United Kingdom. It could be bribery, racial resentment, or just sheer stupidity or short-sightedness. It doesn’t matter. What’s needed is a new patriotic force that can deliver on the promises of Brexit, offer relief to British workers, and maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.
No. There’s not one now. There’s only the hope of Restoration, and that won’t come from the Conservative Party. They’d rather lose than stand for their people.
Whatever explains this British failure also explains the spiritual rot that
exists within the rulers of the U.S. and the entire Western world—a class that
seems not just indifferent to their subjects, but actively hateful.
UNQUOTE
Mr Kirkpatrick [ Email
him ] is a forceful writer; he does not beat about the bush. Is he wrong
about the Treason of the
Tories? If so tell him or tell me. Abuse is an
admission that you have nothing relevant to say. None of this
implies for a moment that the other lot, the
Labour Party are less hostile, less treasonous. The
Establishment has been deeply
corrupted. The Long March Through The
Institutions is paying off for Marxists.
Guido Fawkes; right then, right now.
Tories Loathed Even More Than Labour
[ 15 November 2022 ]
QUOTE
Labour increased its lead over the Tories to 23 points in a new poll that
will raise new concern for
Rishi Sunak just days before a brutal economic intervention.
Sir Keir Starmer's opposition extended its advantage over the Conservatives by five points in a week, according to Deltapoll amid claims by the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt that Thursday's Autumn Statement will be 'horrible'. He revealed yesterday that taxes would go up for all Britons as he tries to get to grips with an economic expected to fall into recession in the next quarter.
Labour moved to 50 per cent in the poll
conducted over the weekend, up three points, with the Tories falling back
two points to 27 per cent.
UNQUOTE
By a happy chance the Libertarian Alliance explains the need for a new party
at
Suggestions for a New Party of the Right. Yes, the Tories
in Parliament are utterly corrupted. Not for nothing is tory an Irish word
for thief. A new party without any Tory office holders makes lots of sense.
It would not incite Illegal Immigration
using luxury accommodation etc. Of course the other lot are far more evil;
determined to destroy England using
Ethnic Fouling to cause
Genocide.
Pakistani Chancellor Buys Off Prosecutors [ 17 January 2023 ]
QUOTE
Former Chancellor
Nadhim Zahawi has reportedly agreed to pay several million pounds to
the taxman following an investigation into his family business.
The Conservative Party chairman and Stratford-upon-Avon MP is said to have paid a bill to HM Revenue and Customs over the sale of shares in pollster YouGov, which he founded.
It was revealed last July that offshore tax specialists had launched an investigation into the firmer Tory leadership contender - who said at the time allegations of wrongdoing were politically motivated 'smears'.
According to the Sun the probe looked into a Gibraltar-based family trust, Balshore Investments, which sold a £20million stake in YouGov in 2018.
Mr Zahawi has said he does not benefit from the trust but the paper said accounts showed some of its dividends were used to pay money to YouGov on his behalf. Experts said this meant the sale could have been liable to capital gains tax.
A spokesman for Mr Zahawi did not reply to MailOnline's request for a
comment, but told the Sun he had 'never had to instruct any lawyers to deal with
HMRC on his behalf'.
UNQUOTE
Politicians in Occupied Palestine aka
Israel can go to prison for rape and thieving. In
England things are looser so Sunak's little mate walks free. NB he did pay back
the £5,822.27 claimed for
heating his stables
Chickens
Come Home To Roost For Tories
[ 2 May 2023 ]
QUOTE
Driving through an affluent suburb of Düsseldorf in the Seventies, J.G.
Ballard had a vision. Like Shepperton, Ballard’s hometown in Surrey, this
20th-century arrangement of wealth, leisure and family located on the
fringes of a great city seemed eternal.............
“If the Conservative Party can’t win here, where can they win?” one Tory
strategist said to me despairingly. Next week, his disbelief will be put to
the first of many tests, not just in Surrey, but across the Home Counties,
the towns and villages that once offered a tangible encapsulation of English
conservatism’s ambitions.
UNQUOTE
An election looms; the Tories, the politicians have
betrayed us. Pay back time at the polls is on Thursday. You will need a passport
or whatever to vote.