Some Politicians Have Been Talking Sense (then there’s the LibDems)

Britain has been stunned by a series of commonsense statements from Labour politicians

Labour MP, yes, Labour MP, David Lammy, has called for a return to Victorian laws on discipline, and basically condemns Labour Governments for their namby-pamby approach.

One day, even Labour MPs will realise that traditional values are/were better, such as effective discipline, traditional marriage, UK independence, Judeo-Christian-based laws, the right to life of the unborn, etc., but I fear that by the time it has seeped through their thick skulls it will be too late.

One day, they will realise that they actively allowed our precious country to be ruined through their own stupidity and cowardice. They will have to accept that they stood by as millions of unborn children were killed out of convenience. When the deceptions conjured up by the feminists evaporate, they will have to accept the truth that these human beings were murdered and that a woman doesn’t have the ‘right to control her own fertility’ while she is carrying another.

When society has finally collapsed in on itself, politicians will have no other option but to admit that their family-destroying agendas involving quickie divorces, sex ‘education’ and ‘gay rights’ were major contributory factors.

And when all our remaining freedoms and money have been siphoned off to pan-European and global institutions and on waging war for regime change to benefit big corporations, they just might consider how badly they misjudged this ‘New World Order’ they thought would solve the world’s problems, but instead brought increased repression and deprivation.

Jack Straw has also been talking sense. I know, I can’t believe it either, but he wants to implement Gordon Brown’s idea from 2003 (while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) when he, “argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain.”

Apparently, Gordon Brown thought it was a good idea to keep our money and spend it here on regional development programmes rather than laundering it by the £billions through the EU. And you thought he was completely bonkers, but he wasn’t. Not completely.

Even Alan Johnson also argued in 2003 that regional policy ought to be “resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels …”

Clearly, this incredibly obvious thing to do wasn’t done. That’s because the agenda has been for the EU to be allowed to gain as much power and influence over us as possible, making our escape all the more difficult the more we become entangled in its web. The UK (and the other 26 children in the EU) get their pocket money from the EU and the EU flag gets put on documents and signs so that people think of it as a generous giver of money, when all this time we could have done everything ‘they’ have funded, plus a whole lot more had our funds not been funnelled through the corrupt EU bureaucratic system first.

But of course, a politician’s default position is to toe the party line and that often involves a dereliction of duty to his country and constituents. When the politician is also a numbnut, we get the likes of Charles Kennedy:

Kennedy makes it clear that Cameron must never again isolate Britain as he did at last month’s summit when he wielded the British veto. The former Lib Dem leader, who is president of the European Movement, tells the Guardian: “We want to see the British government work with our EU partners to make the EU a vehicle for growth and employment. If we are to keep our place in the world we must regain our competitiveness and we can do that better when we work together. Britain’s place is at the centre of where decisions are made.”

Were we really “at the centre of where decisions are made” the EU might just be a tad more tolerable for us. It might be good for British business rather than strangle it with regulations.  

Kennedy is one of 18 pro-European MPs and peers from the three main parties who have signed a letter in the Guardian in support of the EU. Signatories also include the equally pointless ‘Sir’ Menzies Campbell and ‘Lord’ Kinnock.

It is worth remembering that the Kinnocks have personally made enough money out of the EU (i.e. us) to fund a major regeneration programme which would benefit thousands of people.

It is clear why he loves the EU. He’s not daft, is he? He is living proof that socialism can be good for some people.

So, here’s hoping that this wave of sense continues to the point where feminism goes the same way as the T-Rex, political correctness is considered something out of the Dark Ages and the EU becomes as dead as a dodo.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be on the lookout for more outbreaks of political sanity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Some Politicians Have Been Talking Sense (then there’s the LibDems)

  1. robbo says:

    So it’s a return to Victorian values you want is it?
    Very odd that a few posts ago you were whining that Diane Abbott was campaigning for abortion to be allowed in N.I. despite the objections of the majority but now, when it suits you, you come out with this B.S. despite the views of the majority here. How do you reconcile this?

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    What does the majority want, Robbo? Discipline in schools and in the home, I think you’ll find.

  3. robbo says:

    And Victorian values is the only way to achieve this is it? You are a fool Stewart. Our modern liberal and progressive non-Victorian values are the reason children don’t have to go up chimneys and have the right not to be beaten. And when was the last time time you compared the average standards of discipline in schools and in the home with those of the Victorian era?

  4. robbo says:

    I’ll tell you what! I did a google search and found the following:
    amongst many other things.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    Oh my, Robbo. Did you think I was advocating sending children up chimneys?

    And please don’t type, “Our modern liberal and progressive….” in the same sentence as the word, “Values”.

    I think the point that the honourable member was making was that our “modern liberal and progressive non-Victorian values (sic)” have failed dismally.

    Who is the fool? I’ll tell you, it is he who knows he is being lied to, yet still believes it.

  6. robbo says:

    So now you’re saying that the victorians had values because more people believed what you believe despite sending children up chimneys, having draconian penalties for petty crimes and corporal punishment for children and today we have no values because we have done away with child labour etc but fewer people believe what you believe.
    I will continue using “Our modern liberal and progressive….” in the same sentence as the word “Values” as long as you use the word “Victorian”.

  7. Dan H. says:

    In the late 20th century in America, crime rates declined sharply over the course of about a decade. The usual suspects all lined up and claimed credit for this (police, government, churches and similar rabble) yet none had been doing anything different to normal that might’ve accounted for the drop. The Freakonomics theory that neatly explained this was that the decline had begun about 15 years after the Roe v Wade court case in the USA which effectively legalised abortion there.

    The net effect was that women who weren’t or couldn’t use effective contraception were using abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. Prior to this, these pregnancies went to term, and a lot of unwanted children were born and effectively improverished a lot of fairly poor families. These kids were completely unwanted, and a lot tended to go on to be petty criminals. Legalised abortion killed off a large proportion of a cohort of new petty criminals; fifteen years on, the age when most of these would start coming to the attention of the law, a drop in crime was seen as these criminals had never been born.

    What you’re suggesting is going back to a time of no abortion. Such times were not good ones for women; the only ameliorating factor was that there was a good deal of work available for people back then. Times have changed; minimum wage laws make people very expensive to employ, so engineering, manufacturing and so on where it does exist is very heavily automated for cost’s sake. The work isn’t there now, and likely never will be, so engineering a birth boom is the idea of a sadistic madman.

    Another thing to note from the Freakonomics reports and from other economic reports (and from the reports of some innovative pharmaco-criminologists in Rome and London) is how markets for illegal drugs work. In the USA, it is not possible for a street-level dealer to make a living from selling illegal drugs. Most such people are in the game in order to try to ascend the ranks of drugs gangs, since only the higher-up people make serious money from the game, whereas street dealers are normally part-timers with other employment to keep them solvent. Over time in the US, the amount of drug-related violence has declined, and it has declined at the same rate as the street price of narcotics has also declined.

    This price drop is not down to police activity reducing demand. Analysis of sewage for cocaine metabolites demonstrate usage levels and amounts up to ten times official estimates; cocaine use is steady or increasing, and price is decreasing steadily. The War on Drugs is slowly being lost by the Law, and really ought to be declared over and these substances simply legalised entirely. Drug violence is normally down to turf wars between rival drugs gangs, similarly drug-related theft is users trying to raise money for another fix. Legalise drugs (especially opiates) and the price will drop through the floor and make drug dealing unprofitable for gangs and theft a much smaller problem where users are concerned. Interestingly this trick IS a Victorian attribute; the Victorians didn’t seem to care much about narcotics other than alcohol.

  8. I don’t go for the theory of abortion reducing crime! That line demonstrates an alarmingly and deeply eugenic attitude. In the UK it is by no means the case that the majority of women having abortions are destitute paupers. In the UK crime levels [across all crime categories] were much lower prior to 1967 [the year of the Abortion Act] than they are today. Though abortion [under the 67 Act] is not currently illegal in the UK and therefore is not classified as a crime, if abortion was a criminal act as it ought to be then that’d be 7,000,000+ crimes of murder committed in the UK in the last 44 years and, on current trends, a further 200,000 crimes of murder being committed ongoing every year. I’d argue further that the corrosive and depraving effect of allowing our culture of abortion – which devalues human life and dehumanises us as a society – has been to facilitate the huge increase in crimes of violence against the person since the mid 1960s.

    If we were to legalise all drugs and pursue a mainstream culture in which drug-taking is legal, easy, cheap and considered normal and acceptable, then we would quickly see a huge exponential rise in the number of drug addicts, suicides and all the negative social consequences for individuals and society of having thousands upon thousands of people hooked on drugs and with no means whatsoever as a society to attempt to address such problems. The purpose of the drug laws – as with all good laws of the State – go to the heart of the very reason for the [God ordained] institution of nation states and governmental authority, namely the restraint of evil behaviour and the encouragement and facilitation of good behaviour – in the best interests of individuals and society. Drug laws – indeed any good laws – are certainly not ‘failing’ simply because people continue to transgress them; laws cannot prevent the occurrence of crime or the practise of destructive or antisocial behaviour, but they can and do serve as a deterrent to many, and as a restraining influence and hindrance to those undeterred, and as a means of invoking a just punishment upon [and prevention of future reoccurrences of] crime. The idea that we might do away with laws (and thus usher in complete unmitigated anarchy) simply because laws are persistently broken and are difficult and expensive to enforce is rather ridiculous, not to mention evil; the alternative to good laws is, as I say, outright Anarchy. The principle which lies behind the drug laws is good; the laws are intended to restrain and suppress the massively destructive behaviour of drug-taking – and the laws we have do certainly act as a brake upon the activities of drug traders and takers. Our drug laws are well intended and they are functional and fit for purpose: the laws are not intended to eradicate drugs but rather to restrain and suppress both the supply of and demand for drugs and in that regard our extant laws have always worked and will continue to do so, to the extent that they are vigourously enforced.

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo, the MP used the word ‘Victorian’, perhaps unwisely as some people obviously became confused.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Dan, yes, drugs were relatively easy to get back then and apparently, many drug-related problems we associate with these times didn’t exist then. We need a rethink on it.

    I don’t accept your reason for falling crime.

Leave a Reply to robbo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>