Thursday, December 20, 2012

"The Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service"


Peter Oborne in the Telegraph has written one of the most perceptive analyses of the contemporary Conservative Party in a very long time. But it's a bit rich of him (and the Telegraph) to blame B-rate backbenchers for handing the next general election to Ed Miliband when he (and they) are constantly carping and criticising. It may indeed be that David Cameron hates his party and much of his party loathes him, but it is journalists like Oborne and newspapers like the Telegraph which fan the discontent.

The most perceptive comments are on the nature and character of old and new Tory MPs, and how this transation has shifted the expression of Conservatism:
...The truth is that the character of Tory MPs has mutated in the course of little more than a generation. For almost all of the 20th century, Conservatives were guided by the essential Christian insight that their personal needs, ambitions and egos were the things which mattered least of all. Their lives only had meaning and purpose within the context of the great institutions of church and state.

...Second, the Conservative Party, as traditionally constituted, always understood that the national interest was more important than party advantage. This was an intuition that confounded and baffled Labour, whose political analysis was founded on class antagonism.

Thus traditional Tories always welcomed coalition government as a fine expression of patriotism in response to a common emergency – think of the way that Bonar Law took second place to Lloyd George, or Stanley Baldwin stood aside for Ramsay MacDonald. The modern Tory party, in sharp contrast, views coalition with churlish and blinkered resentment. This is because its MPs think too much of partisan advantage and sectional interest.

Third, the Conservative Party used to be the stupid party, on the whole a positive thing. Many allegedly stupid Conservatives, with Willie Whitelaw the classic example, were intelligent but not intellectual (another distinction that Labour and its allies in the liberal media found hard to comprehend). Tories like Whitelaw, who had lived through the 1930s and served as a tank commander in the Second World War, knew at first hand the damage that abstract ideas could do.

In a linked insight, they also understood that the vast bulk of government was not about changing the world, but about compromise and pragmatism. Over the past 12 months, by contrast, the Tories have developed an enthusiasm for ideological purity that recalls the Labour Party of the late 1970s. Last week, a Tory MP named Brian Binley published an “open letter” to the Prime Minister, a moment of preposterous self-importance that was nevertheless taken seriously by many people who ought to have known better.

To sum up, the Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service that served it so well over the past two centuries. It has lost its sense of history, and lives in a perpetual present characterised by frantic manoeuvring for immediate political gain. Many of its MPs, though of high intellect, unfortunately are of low character. This is a state of affairs which does not merely threaten its chances of winning the next election, but throws its long-term survival into serious doubt.

David Cameron, as party leader, must take some of the responsibility for this. He threw his personal weight behind some of the MPs who have inflicted the worst damage, such as Louise Mensch and Zac Goldsmith, the insubstantial and foppish member for Richmond. More seriously, the Prime Minister and his ally George Osborne have failed to provide moral leadership.

Mr Osborne, in particular, gives the damaging impression that politics is a game which belongs to a tiny coterie of clever, devious and extremely rich people. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne – they are so close personally and politically that they deserve the joint appellation of Camborne – show far too little appreciation of the importance of institutions in British public life, less still of the historical foundations of the Conservative Party.

They remain transfixed by the electoral success of Tony Blair, and regard The Unfinished Revolution, the shallow masterpiece written by Mr Blair’s late pollster Philip Gould, as a rule book for how politics should be conducted, rather than what it really is: a nightmarish warning. The controversial gay marriage initiative may well be an attempt to emulate Tony Blair’s famous “Clause Four” moment, when he asserted his own authority at the expense of the Labour Party.
Which brings us to the illustration His Grace has selected for today's post. The people (and Her Majesty) want authentic and intelligent representatives who understand and appreciate those qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service. Previous generations of Conservatives were indeed guided by the essential Christian insight that their personal needs, ambitions and egos were the things which mattered least of all. Yet cast adrift in a sea of relativism and promoted beyond their capabilities, many of the new generation see politics as the fulfilment of personal ambition rather than as a dutiful public service. And it is noteworthy that this shift in perceptions is contiguous with changing attitudes toward the great institutions of church and state, the meaning, purpose and functions of which are simply no longer widely understood by many Conservative MPs.

61 Comments:

Blogger Naomi King said...




The Daily Express says it all yesterday

"TRADITIONAL TORIES ARE DEFECTING TO UKIP IN DROVES, three separate opinion polls on Sunday put it on a 14 per cent vote share. If this trend continues David Cameron can forget about winning the next general election.

After Nigel Farage, the man who has helped Ukip move from a three per cent party to a 12 or 14 per cent party is David Cameron himself. From the moment he leapt into coalition with the pro-immigration, pro-EU Nick Clegg, Mr Cameron began to alienate traditional Conservative supporters. For a long time many Conservatives who were deeply disappointed by Mr Cameron gave him the benefit of the doubt, understanding that he had been given a difficult political hand to play.

But a few weeks ago he managed even to alienate a substantial portion of these sympathisers by picking an entirely unnecessary fight about gay marriage. Not only did this remind long-suffering Conservatives about the last entirely unnecessary row he picked with them (about grammar schools), but it also transmitted a more damaging signal: that David Cameron holds their views in contempt. The most recent boost Ukip has received – around four points in the polls during the last month – is surely a direct result.

All of these actions by Mr Cameron were underpinned by an assumption, he may finally be understanding is incorrect: that traditional Tories have nowhere else to go. They do. And a lot of them have already gone. And the centre-ground “progressives” his advisers such as Lord Ashcroft, told him would be won over by more foreign aid and gay rights have failed to show up to replace them.

Can Cameron win back the traditionalists by 2015? Some, perhaps. But some won’t be good enough."

20 December 2012 at 09:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Its civil war in the conservative party ...

Tory Diary - Conservative Home By Tim Montgomerie

"Apparently Tory backbenchers rather than the Tory leadership are responsible for the party's difficulties

The biggest errors of recent years were the pursuit of the wrong kind of modernisation, emphasing liberalism rather than social justice; the backbenchers were not responsible for any of these errors. A final confession from me. I support equal marriage. But I badly underestimated the clear upset that the proposal has caused throughout the parliamentary party and the party in the country. When David Burrowes MP predicted a rebellion of 100 backbenchers at the start of the year he was right. Number 10 would benefit from having a few more people like David at the 8.30am and 4pm daily meetings.

David Burrowes is hugely popular with his colleagues and an advocate of the strong and compassionate conservatism that represents the best future for our party. He is currently PPS to Owen Paterson. If Owen will forgive me I'd argue that David would be better working for the PM, inside Number 10, helping him repair relations with his backbenchers rather than escalating already serious tensions."

20 December 2012 at 09:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Why is the Conservative Party is this mutinous state ?

"David Cameron deserves better than this ghastly backbench B-team. The Tory leader David Cameron can do nothing to satisfy his selfish MPs."

Peter Osborne - Daily Telegraph yesterday

"To sum up, the Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service that served it so well over the past two centuries. It has lost its sense of history, and lives in a perpetual present characterised by frantic manoeuvring for immediate political gain.

Many of its MPs, though of high intellect, unfortunately are of low character. This is a state of affairs which does not merely threaten its chances of winning the next election, but throws its long-term survival into serious doubt.

This year [since the homosexual "marriage" proposa], everything has changed – starting with the Budget in March. The Coalition has started to disintegrate. Mr Miliband now looks likely to become the next prime minister, while authority is draining away from Mr Cameron.

Mr Cameron has suffered two massive Commons defeats, thanks to mutiny by his own party. There is even some talk of a Tory leadership contest.

The conventional response is to blame the Prime Minister. Talk privately with almost any group of Conservative MPs and they roll their eyes and tell you how dreadful he is, that the Downing Street “operation” is no good, that the Lib Dems are a nightmare, and that the Government has lost all sense of direction.

In recent weeks, I have started to wonder whether we are not all looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Could it be that the problems lie rather less with Mr Cameron, and more with his MPs? Very few prime ministers, if any, could survive for long with the Conservative Party in its present mutinous and unruly state.

The truth is that the character of Tory MPs has mutated in the course of little more than a generation. For almost all of the 20th century, Conservatives were guided by the essential Christian insight that their personal needs, ambitions and egos were the things which mattered least of all. Their lives only had meaning and purpose within the context of the great institutions of church and state.

Out of control Tory MPs, by heaping criticism on their leader, are legitimising Ukip claims of national betrayal. More important than that, they are handing Ed Miliband the next general election on a plate – according to the latest ComRes poll, the Labour leader can look forward to an outright majority of above 100.

The Conservative Party needs to regain its poise very soon, or the next election will be lost, and one dreads to think what kind of breakdown will come after that.

Is there anything at all that could shut them up? Yes, [drop the idea of homosexual so called "marriage"]. David Cameron, as party leader, must take some of the responsibility for this. He threw his personal weight behind some of the liberals who have inflicted the worst damage."

20 December 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger David B said...

I suspect HG has a somewhat rose-tinted view of Tories of the past.

Neither Cameron nor Clegg have received much in the way of kudos for how they managed to resolve the potential for political chaos and financial disaster in the days following the last election.

I strongly suspect that when people who actually do put the well being of the country above their personal positions and prejudices seriously consider the potential for disaster had they acted differently, then both will be judged much more kindly by history than they are currently judged by their mediocre contemporaries.

David B

20 December 2012 at 09:33  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

We do no longer have to put up with this.

Even our local Unionist Club has disaffiliated from the Conservation branch. The Local branch chair"person" now describes club members as "Thugs - UKIP and BNP members" which, of course, few would be. Most are just small "c" conservatives, elderly couples and local businessmen and professionals.

But that's how they treat people. That's why branch membership is at an all time low.

I think the Tories may have to go through a period out of power, with financial difficulties, losing many MP's before the penny drops.

Like Labour - they care more for the money and ideas of wealthy contributors and influential minority pressure groups and marginal voters.

The bulk of the electorate is treated with contempt. Fed sound-bites and bribes. They are regarded as "in the bag" and therefore can be ignored.

It's about time people woke up and flung both Labour and the Tories into the margins until they have been flushed out of the system.

We no longer live in a democracy.

In what true democracy would the main concerns of the people - immigration, crime, taxation, failing schools, corruption, multiculturalism/Islamism - be the things that our representatives are doing the LEAST about.

http://bit.ly/T9fQpv


20 December 2012 at 09:47  
Blogger Gary said...

Re "many of the new generation see politics as the fulfilment of personal ambition rather than as a dutiful public service."

Which is why they appear on TV shows like "I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here". Nadine, Boris, Dave and co have bought into the whole culture of celebrity. They are mere Pop Politicians, a breed that was anticipated by Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves To Death way back in the eighties.

20 December 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...


They are not learning are they ...

Desmond Swayne MP was Cameron's PPS and is now at the Whips office

Subject: "Kicked into the Long Grass"
> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:48:08 +0000
>
> Dear Desmond
>
> Last February, as we walked up the stairs to the Committee Room on the CFI Parliamentary Lobby Day, you gave me the assurance that the homosexual so called "marriage" proposals would be "kicked into the long grass". Can you and the party now confirm that you will be standing by this reassuring commitment ?
>
> Warmest regards
>
Rt Hon Desmond Swayne TD MP
House of Commons
SW1A 0AA

Thanks, but I have no recollection of expressing any such sentiment. In all our communications I have pointed out that I disagree with you and that I support the proposals. The bill will be inroduced in the Commons in late January, and will have to be carried over into the next parliamentary session in May before completing its passage in the Lords. D


I can assure all readers that this is exactly what Desmond said to me back last February on the stairs up to the Committee Room, that these proposals will be "kicked into the long grass".

20 December 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger Tony B said...

Naomi King. Didn't you copy and paste all that lot in the comment section on His Grace's last offering? Zzzz.

It certainly seems to me that there is tribalism on both sides, but to suggest that this is new for the Conservatives is laughable.

20 December 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Spamtastic.

Does anyone actually think UKIP would have a chance in a general election? Aren't claims of jumping ship just a means of trying to force Central Office along a certain line?

20 December 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Although much of what Oborne says is valid, I suspect he has a somewhat rosy vision of what the Conservative Party was in the past. Certainly, on the whole the quality of its MPs was morally far higher than it is today, but the crash in moral standards may be linked directly to its most successful - or at least, triumphal - period in office, the Thatcher years, and considering even Labour prime ministers are afraid to call her out for what she was, it must be said that if the Tories today are identified as scheming, selfish, greedy, short-sighted scumbags, then they are the perfect political representatives of the people - if not of Britain, then certainly of England. The Scots still show considerable character and vision, and I don't say that just because I'm married to one.

I have to say that it's also the case that the Tory qualities Oborne alludes to were possibly honoured (even in "the good old days") slightly more in the breach than the observance, more a question of what should have been, rather than what actually was. That iconic figure of Toryism, Churchill, for instance, was a history of the most complete opportunism and adventurism (costing the lives of thousands at Gallipoli), redeemed only by the 18 or 20 months between his becoming Prime Minister and the entry of the US into WWII.

Where I will agree with Oborne is in his assumption that decent government has to be underpinned by Christin principle (or, at this point, I'd settle for ANY kind of principle) if it is to be consistent and fair. Oborne is a narky old sod; sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong, and this time it's a little from column A and a little from column B.

20 December 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Just in from EU..

SMOKERS FACE BRUSSELS BLITZ

"http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/366152/Smokers-face-Brussels-blitz"

A suggestion..In every pack of 10 or 20 tabs, have one loaded with a small amount of semtex. That should do the trick nicely. Referendum Puhleaze.

Blofeld

20 December 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger Asa said...

Hilarious the self-deceptions certain artless englanders need to weave for themselves. Where exactly was the noblesse oblige of the Conservative party during Herr Thatcher's reign of terror? 
In truth England never recovered the soul she lost when the minority schemers of Edward VI's time seized power and rewrote history  under the guise of that most fatuous of all "abstract ideas", the Protestant Reformation.

20 December 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Owl said...

A perceptive article YG.

It is difficult to imagine that the Conservatives will ever recover from the damage done.

It is strange but from my younger position of being well left of the Conservative party, I am now well right of it, and I haven't moved at all.

UKIP is the only party I could imagine voting for. They, at least, do seem to have some values and morals left.

The DC/Blair/Clegg double act is just obscene.

The possbility of a Labour goverment means years of hell ahead but maybe it will be worth it, just to get rid of Dave and send Clegg back under his rock.

If, by then, enough moral Conservatives join UKIP, we may be able to then replace the spawns of the Fabians with a real political party.

20 December 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger michael north said...

The ultimate nightmare scenario would be for UKIP to scupper Cameron's SSM project, but allow a Labour victory at the next election. And they would definitely bring it in. It's a chance I'm willing to take, as any country with SSM is heading down the toilet anyway. The fact that it's even being discussed is a sign of how far gone we already are.

20 December 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger Berserker said...

I agree with David B that HG has a somewhat rose-tinted view of Tories of the past. I would call it a flaming great sunset view of Tories.

Yesteryear, the Tories were known for their predominately narrow self interest view of business and the country. Ambitions and egos - well, Disraeli and Churchill.

Our present coalition is a very unequal coalition compared to the past. 57 Liberal MP's!

In the 1918 GE, if a ‘Coupon’ Liberal (one who had a letter signed by both Lloyd George and Bonar Law after they had supported the coalition so that when they stood for election, no Conservative challenged him and vice versa) Therefore there was no chance of coalition candidate competing against another.

So why does not UKIP ask the Tories not to stand against them in say half a dozen Tory seats in return for towing the Tory party line on everything except Europe?
 

20 December 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger David B said...

Might I point out that though I see a good deal of carping and cavilling about the coalition, the point I made concerning the statesmanship of the two major parties involved in the setting up of the coalition and the potential dire consequences for the country, and particularly the economy, had they failed to do so has met with not even the slightest attempt at a rebuttal.

It is as if the carpers were walking round with their fingers in their ears singing 'La La La I can't hear you'.

Would we, do you think, be better off than Greece or Spain had the Libs supported Labour? A minority Tory Government? Or what?

Please show your working.

David B

20 December 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Asa said...

David B.,
Your question is loaded: you presume that we are better off than Spain or Greece. Why? Show your working. Do you think that as a nation we are less sotted? Less culturally shallow? Less opinionated? Less full of ourselves? That we possess a more endearing working class? That our governing class are more principled? What do you mean by "better off?"

20 December 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We have more control of our monetary policy, for one.

20 December 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Naomi King @ 9.23 said 'A final confession from me. I support equal marriage'
I am astonished. I always thought you had a sensible approach to moral issues.

20 December 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

His Grace. It may indeed be that David Cameron hates his party and much of his party loathes him, but it is journalists like Oborne and newspapers like the Telegraph which fan the discontent.

Hardly old chap, the Conservative party is whatever its members say it is, want it to be. If the leader differs to the party, then he must put up with everything flying his way. Thatcher suffered the same to begin with, but won through. Fortunately, Cameron is no Thatcher.

Oborne merely tells it as it is, and jolly good luck to him for saying so, he deserves commendation not criticism…




20 December 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Conservative Party who?

20 December 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

When they sold their High Tory Soul, the rest followed like a House of Cards in a gale.

20 December 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

"I suspect HG has a somewhat rose-tinted view of Tories of the past."

Perhaps - though it's harder to remember the Liberal Party in such terms. However, for the sake of spreading the rose-tint, I'd note that a similar commentary could be made of Old Labour, which was a good deal less revolutionary than Oborne gives it credit for. Think, for instance, of Atlee, who was thoroughly opposed to the war both personally and politically, but pulled with the nation when it became clear he wasn't in the majority, and quite obviously, once hostilities began.

There have always been opportunists and charlatans, and more than a few of them have ended up in Nos. 10 and 11 over the years, but there was once a stronger sense of genuine public service, of respect for electoral mandates, and above all, of duty.

I don't say that this is absent in modern Parliament, but it is neither expected nor inculcated in its members; and in any case, where it does still shine on the backbenches, it is so antithetical to the thinking of our masters that it is either snuffed, snubbed, or left exposed to the wind.

Blair has a lot to answer for, but presidential politics without presidential checks and balances is one of the most pernicious aspects of the legacy he left us, and which I suspect we will continue to endure for some time to come.

20 December 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

By the way, although I haven't had a chance to read it in the last week or so, I have been following your FOLFOX diary elsewhere, and just wanted to let you know that you are still in my thoughts and prayers.

Hope the cold weather on the mainland isn't proving too unbearable (we're surprisingly warm up here for the time of year).

20 December 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger David B said...

Thank you Belfast.

Cold can be a real problem when taking my particular poisons, but down on the fringes of Wales there has only been one really bad day so far.

I share your distaste for Bliar, and find much to agree with in your political post.

It is a pleasure to converse with decent, kind, thoughtful people, regardless of their religious and political views.

David

20 December 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

It's all to do with the waning interest in cricket and the growing popularity of football.

20 December 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"It is a pleasure to converse with decent, kind, thoughtful people, regardless of their religious and political views."

Likewise.

20 December 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Integrity, my old sport...an aside whilst no-one is listening and this will remain a secret just between you and me..

Ms King is quoting from the statement of Mr Montgomery the gormless !!

Now put down that 7th glass of port my boy, after the 6th it does terrible things with the eye to brain coordination link up.

Merry Christmas *hic* ;-)

Blofeld

20 December 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Roy said...

Corrigan said...

That iconic figure of Toryism, Churchill, for instance, was a history of the most complete opportunism and adventurism (costing the lives of thousands at Gallipoli), redeemed only by the 18 or 20 months between his becoming Prime Minister and the entry of the US into WWII.

What you wrote is a complete travesty. Churchill, for all his faults, was always a patriot. The Gallipoli Campaign was intended to help to keep Russia in the war against Germany. The idea of forcing Germany to fight on two fronts for the whole of the First World War had obvious merits.

Of course it turned out badly but Churchill was only responsible for the strategy. The admirals and generals were responsible for its execution. Perhaps the operation would have been successful if the Turkish forces at Gallipoli had been commanded by a lesser man than Attaturk.

As for your remark about how Churchill's career was redeemed only by the 18 or 20 months between his becoming Prime Minister and the entry of the US into WWII that is a gratuitous insult not only to Churchill but, more importantly, to all the people of Britain who took part in the Second World War.

You obviously subscribe to the Hollywood version of history and have no conception of who was responsible for the success of Allied strategy in North Africa and the Mediterranean nor who did most of the planning for the D-Day landings and the Normandy campaign.

20 December 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Which is more important, the Conservative Party or a conservative party?

20 December 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David B, I just read your entries on Folfox after seeing AIB's post. That's a hard, hard journey, my onlime Limey friend. You're one feisty bugger, though, and I know you'll travel it bravely. But that warm beer idea, oy-oy-oy, might wanna pop an extra anti-nausea pill with that.

May the Almighty grant you a רפואה שלמה/refuah shlema; a speedy and complete recovery, David.

21 December 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS: Ha ha! Meant to write online rather than onlime...a funny slip when writing to a Limey.

21 December 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

Love the pics, Your Grace; though I'd almost hope HM might consider not voting at all. My dream is that we could all do that, then none of the devils could claim a mandate. Still --- we know it's not practicable. So perhaps a campaign might have some effect: to show all indigenous Britons that those marxists and fabians who have pretended to champion their cause have, in fact, betrayed them more utterly than anyone ever.

Beyond that, I'm noting the inclusion of "pragmatism" in Oborne's list of 'qualities.' At best, the term is vague. At worst it connotes interference, officiousness, dogmatism, humanism, and some sense that ends justify means. One realises that this may be an honest portrayal of any politician (esp. modern); nevertheless, one would prefer that conservatives didn't attribute the description to virtue, or to themselves.***




***Based on Chambers.
____________________
Mr. David B --- best wishes for your speedy recovery. This seems to be an advance on the treatment of my mother: her doctors didn't even diagnose the condition until 6 weeks before the end.


21 December 2012 at 02:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: Sorry. That should read ... 'or limit it to themselves.'

21 December 2012 at 02:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

A few facts and figures which I hope will illustrate how effective the enemy of all righteousness has been in infiltrating British society with the objective of making us to become like Sodom and Gomorrah. The purpose of this exercise is not to be alarmist, quite the contrary, it is to simply illustrate how far things have developed in the anti-Christian culture of 21st century Britain.

To condition a country's population there are various institutions it is desirable to control:-

Entertainment & the Media
Education
Law Enforcement
Banking
Government Central and Local
The Military

If the above institutions are infiltrated and taken control of then it is much easier to condition the thinking and the actions of the population at large. This is not an overnight change we are considering but rather one that may take decades or even a generation, but nevertheless if left unchecked change will certainly be effected – and most certainly if the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't prevent it from happening.

There is currently a lobby group operating in Britain which you may or may not have heard off called Stonewall, they are a highly effective organisation whose fundamental aim is to use homosexuals to subjugate the British society in the same way that Sodom and Gomorrah were in the time of Lot.

In order to achieve this objective, some years ago they introduced a scheme which allowed large companies and governmental organisations the opportunity to compete for an award of being one of the top 100 "pro-gay employers" in the country. Despite costing each organisation thousands of pounds to sign up, it seemed that with political correctness increasingly getting a grip there was no shortage of candidates putting themselves forward to compete for the coveted prizes.

During the last few years the list includes:-

ITV
Crown Prosecution Service
Many Universities including Cambridge
Department for Work & Pensions
In 2009 – 16 Police Forces
In 2011 – 11 Police Forces
In 2012 – 9 Police Forces
HM Revenue & Customs
Goldman Sachs,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Many City Councils
National Assembly for Wales
Barnardos
Royal Navy & Royal Air Force
Citizens Advice Bureau
National Audit Office
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Major Banks
Infiltrate the police, the armed forces, the banks, the local councils and their Social Services departments, Central Government and the policy & law makers, the media and entertainment industry and before long there will be very little resistance from among the population. Once resistance is weakened, pressurise the government to provide 'full equality' through redefining marriage to include 'same sex couples' and overnight the so called 'nuclear family', the building block of a successful society is destroyed with the resulting chaos and confusion.

If this seems all very frightening, it is exactly where we are at today in the Britain of 2012.

21 December 2012 at 07:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Don't believe me ...

BBC Told to Put More Homosexual People on Kids’ TV. A report of the corporation recommended that children’s programs should include more lesbian, homosexual and bisexual people. A panel of nine experts said children should be introduced to sexual diversity early in life.

BBC children's presenter Kirsten O'Brien said that 'everyone at CBBC is either gay or childless and don't like kids'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247981/BBC-told-gay-presenters-characters-childrens-TV-familiarise-young-people-different-sexualities.html

The study said gay presenters would 'validate' the feelings of gay children
It said this was important for young people in their ' formative years'
Report said BBC News gave too much time to 'homophobic' viewpoints
It also recommended having more gay characters in dramas and soaps

A panel of nine experts said youngsters should be introduced to sexual diversity in their early years.
While there has been a gradual increased in the representation of these people, they remain 'still relatively invisible' in the media, they said.

21 December 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger David B said...

Naomi, have you any evidence to suggest that all, most of or any of the leading lights of Stonewall see the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as at all relevant to a rather reasonable campaign against discrimination against homosexuals?

If so, would you kindly present it?

If not, would you consider the damage done to your credibility by pushing the unevidenced nonsense as fact?

David



21 December 2012 at 08:03  
Blogger David B said...

I should of course have said 'whatever credibility you may think you may have'

David

21 December 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Naomi King: There is currently a lobby group operating in Britain which you may or may not have heard off called Stonewall

What, you think we've been hiding under a rock all these years? You think we've never heard of Peter Tatchell and his aggressively militant cohorts?

Give us a break...

21 December 2012 at 08:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...

If it seems all very frightening, it is exactly where we are at today in the Britain of 2012.

I believe that most Christian believers would agree that the Church is helpless to turn this situation around without the leading and power of the Holy Spirit to direct the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ into effective intercessory prayer and spiritual warfare; but equally, with His guidance and power the situation could be reversed overnight - just as it was during the time of Queen Esther when Haman plotted to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, (some things just don't change).

The antidote:- If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

May we find grace in this time of need.

21 December 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see Naomi has gone into overdrive today. It must be all the current talk about the end of the world. :)

21 December 2012 at 09:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Naomi

Whilst you are somewhat over enthusiastic at times, you are on the right track concerning the reshaping of British "morality".

21 December 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 12.03, regarding Churchill and Gallipoli.

This communicant reflects that Churchill had a deep knowledge of history and following his military service in India, an understanding of Islam that escaped the less experienced. Enoch Powell was in the same boat.

As Roy points out @ 23.07, keeping Russia in the war against the Central Powers was essential. Indeed, following the defeat of Russia, it was not until the forces of the British and French Empires were reinforced by the US that any real impression was made on the German position in the Western Front.

Churchill took the long view. Apart from the tactical necessity of tying up the Turks in the Dardenelles it was Churchill's objective to take Constantinople, potentially reversing the Fall of 1453. In the event the Allies did occupy Constantinople under the Armistice, in which case the terms were different to those available to a conquering force.

If Constantinople had fallen to the Allies in 1915, much of 20th Century history may have been very different. At that time Constantinople had a large Greek population and may have been able to return to its status as a Greek city. In this event, the Hagia Sophia would have returned to Christian worship in 1915. The expulsion of the Greeks from Asia Minor would not have happened and the rise of Turkey as a Sunni hegemon in the Eastern Mediterranean could have been deferred. Cyprus would not have been invaded by Turkey in 1974, for example. The Armenian genocide would not have occurred.

Churchill had a classical education and was a philhellene. Churchill's pro-Hellenic leanings emerged again in WW2 where Britain paid an attention to Greece that arguably went far beyond the immediate military necessities. The late Harold MacMillan made his reputation as British minister in Greece during WW2, something that would have greatly assisted Supermac's rise during the immediate post-war period.

Was Churchill wrong to have sought to capture Constantinople and gain the obvious benefits to Christianity?

Surely not.

21 December 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see."
(Winston Churchill)

22 December 2012 at 00:17  
Blogger len said...

I don`t expect the Queen will be in a hurry to repeat the experience of meeting with the Cabinet.

I imagine her leaving the meeting with her Government saying "and these people are running the Country?".

'Broken Britain' is being beaten into the ground by this 'cobbled together'coalition led by those who are loading the burden of recovery on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.
Cameron`s Conservatism is a 'rich boys' club whose contempt for the poor and the disadvantaged is thinly disguised if at all.

22 December 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I agree it's a rich man's club with little regard for the people they govern and even less for the struggling poor.
The most valuable commodity is humans. People invent things that make the economy successful yet government – all of them -crush and penalise people any way they can in order to plug the gaps instead of having faith in “the man in the shed” inventing things. Road tolls is another wheeze. Selling the roads to johnny foreigner.

British governments have never really supported or managed our industries well to be able to hold onto and grow them. Through governments half hearted and bad management of BOAC and all the bad decisions to consolidate the small but enthusiastic, flourishing aviation industries after WWII we let it slip away to America and even allowed the Russians to get hold of the secrets of our fastest jet engine for nothing!

We somehow managed to invent and build the most fantastic and advanced aeroplanes in an era of severe austerity straight after the second world war. We endured the trials and tribulations of invention only for it to be mismanaged by governments and given away to other countries. We worked and created, painstakingly investigated and endured to create wonderful planes.

If governments supported and protected our inventions more companies here would flourish and there would be more real jobs. If they understood the competitiveness of the open market they would look after our industries more so that we'd have more products to compete with. Of course it's tough.

The Saudi's can have our jets but they must pay the price if they want the best, and who wouldn't. Over half a century of engineering experience, innovation and toil has gone into them.


22 December 2012 at 03:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Marie (13:14) --- the more we see, the more we know how badly we have been betrayed by post-war governments of all colours.

Your focus on aviation is unexpected, and I'm glad you mentioned BOAC!! I recently saw photographs of the old livery on those 707s with Rolls Royce engines: they were so beautiful. Or, perhaps you were a '10s person!

To think it's all been given away to the Armada-mongers makes me ashamed to go near our airline now. That's why I don't fly if I can help it --- that and the horror of coming home to a London where alien searchers (wo)manhandle passengers on arrival; then they expect us to kow-tow in front of that vile blue and yellow rag and line up as euros. They expect a positive response to "Welcome to europe."

I'm not so sure 'conservative' is what we need, really. I'd like to see some restorative at work.




22 December 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger Naomi King said...

One minute we were all happily contemplating how best to celebrate Christmas in a recession, and the next the whole country is up in arms over the proposed legislation announced yesterday to introduce gay marriage. Quite what can have possessed David Cameron to charge willy nilly down this particular road remains a mystery to all; not least to his own party which is now visibly breaking apart at the seams. And R.S.Harris’ highly commended book, ‘Is there a case for same sex marriage?’, which Voice for Justice UK published yesterday in association with Anglican Mainstream, is already providing compelling insight and argument helping fuel the debate!

But the question remains: why has David Cameron chosen to push an issue that will radically redefine society as we know it, and was always wanted at most by only a tiny minority of the population? After all, only around 7000 same sex couples have so far chosen to enter into a civil partnership, and not all of them will want to convert this to ‘marriage’ – in fact some are fiercely opposed to the very idea. So why, when we have so many pressing problems in the UK today – like a triple dip recession, an escalating nuclear arms race in the middle east, the ever present threat of terrorism, and a disintegrating political situation in Northern Ireland, to name but a few … why, in heaven’s name, are the 62,000,000 people who make up our population being asked, at huge financial cost, to jettison theinstitution that has been foundational to the growth and stability of society for thousands of years? Is it really right to go down this route to satisfy a mere handful, who may or may not want it?

Can it be that Mr Cameron is actually trying to divert our attention away from these infinitely more serious problems, which have the added distinction of being real and not manufactured? Or is he puppet to Nick Clegg’s skilful manipulation of the strings, performing a dance to satisfy the demands of an ailing coalition that has lost all of its other demands?
Whatever the answer, he can’t seriously believe the Church will meekly accept the gossamer thin assurances now being put forward of statutory exemption. Especially not when the likes of Peter Tatchell are already crying unfair and promising challenge in the European Court.

22 December 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"So why, when we have so many pressing problems in the UK today – like a triple dip recession, an escalating nuclear arms race in the middle east, the ever present threat of terrorism, and a disintegrating political situation in Northern Ireland, to name but a few … why, in heaven’s name, are the 62,000,000 people who make up our population being asked, at huge financial cost, to jettison theinstitution that has been foundational to the growth and stability of society for thousands of years?"

Jettison?

If there's a difference between now and afterward then I doubt anyone will even notice.

22 December 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 12.10 says, 'If there's a difference between now and afterward then I doubt anyone will even notice.'

Your opinion. Married parents have a different opinion and a greater stake in the future.

22 December 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

One would think some people might learn from the recent Mayan thing.

22 December 2012 at 14:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Non Mouse

I mention aviation because it's what we were good at along with ship building and I feel we have to have a revival of inventing again, commercial space travel and adventure is on the ascendant.

I was thinking of our triumphs and tribulations with the many types of planes we produced during the late 40's, 50's and 60's until we gave our technology to Boeing who then took over with the 707 which our disloyal government at the time who owned BOAC favoured and bought instead of more of the British De havelland Comet 4's.

But De Havelland had more orders from around the world than they could fulfil and so lost some of the really big ones. If the government at the time were more supportive things could have been very different.

I like the Vickers VC10 built for the short runways to service the Empire routes, BOAC did buy them. I like the Comet 4 and I love the Harrier Jump Jet which we have given to the Yanks. It won us the Falklands war. I think they should make an updated version of it for our air force again.

22 December 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I dunno, voting UKIP seems like a wasted vote. Unlike my recent vote on Strictly.

22 December 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Dear Archbishop you can now add Pink News to your list of citations -

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/21/tory-whip-i-never-said-equal-marriage-would-be-kicked-into-the-long-grass/

Congratulations.

24 December 2012 at 06:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Many would have us believe that it is time for marriage to be different and that those who stand for traditional marriage are out of step and are living in bygone era. I don't believe that.

The Church has to be the voice for what is just and right in our nation. Too much is at stake to do any less. A fully functional, mature family consists of a mother and father and children. God ordained it so. Only male and female can produce offspring. It is just that way.

If we allow marriage to be redefined, it is the beginning of losing our religious liberties and the beginning of persecution for Christians who support God centered principles. There are groups who take it upon themselves to identify other groups who don't believe in same-sex unions as hate groups. Why? Because they disagree with those who simply believe in what God says and inn His ordained institution of marriage and refuse to buy into the hype of the LGBT community that it is their right to have something which God never provided for their lifestyle.

So what do we do? We keep fighting for what we know is true, noble, right and just: marriage between one man and one woman. We pray for God's wisdom in this fight against principalities, powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world. We educate the populous about the misnomers of same-sex marriage. We support traditional marriage at the ballot box.

Yes, there is strength in numbers and we must build a grassroots movement of like-minded individuals across this great nation to help win the war for traditional marriage and the family lifestyle.

We must return to our faith and stand once again for our God-given convictions. Don't be fooled, intimidated or ridiculed for taking a stand for God's given marriage. Not the sham which is being proposed by David Cameron and his Liberal friends (see the Pink News citation above).

God bless

24 December 2012 at 06:55  
Blogger non mouse said...

MARIE (22/12 @19:51) – thank you; I agree we should re-ignite our lead in intelligent creativity. Though that would take reinstatement of the learning tradition - the search for truth - which we nurtured from AD597 onwards. I’m sure many of our families have maintained it: it’s hardwired into minds and probably predicated on genes; and all cannot be lost when we have people like His Grace, for example, in our midst.

Still, even if our youngsters again turned garden sheds into engineering labs (euSSR notwithstanding), the increased corruption of our cultural context hinders us. Case in point: An admirer of English detective fiction recently recommended to me a modern mystery, modelled on our ‘golden’ tradition. Well. I couldn’t stand the thing-it’s fake: the plot’s riddled with (sorry: ‘underpinnned by’) marx -isms, the writing’s mechanical, the protagonist’s a psychologist’s nightmare, the characters are foul-mouthed, the police are authoritarian twits... Turns out the writer is an American who thinks she has the British figured out. She’s telling us, and everybody else, what we are. So I compared her work to Sayers’ Gaudy Night. In every department, the difference in quality is riveting; but it pays us to remember that the ‘rhetorical/cultural context’ of each writer contributes to that quality. So it is with any creative endeavour.

On the aircraft... the Comet IVs were beautiful and ultimately served well, I believe. Unfortunately, their optimal evolution involved a series of tragedies, which the competition exploited so as to give us a bad name - after we’d made the running. Even I have to admit it wasn’t just the government, though they could indeed have been more supportive.

cont'd...

25 December 2012 at 02:36  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 December 2012 at 02:51  
Blogger non mouse said...

. . .cont'd

Still, BOAC managed to hang wonderful Rolls Royce engines on their 707s. The airframes had their developmental problems though: remember Fuji? I understood that, afterwards, the tailplanes of every airline's 707s were modified to avoid structural weakening. So yes, we continued to play our part in improving jet aircraft maintenance.

And, by the way, 707s definitely plied what you are calling the “empire routes” --- though there wasn’t a lot of empire about in the 60-70s. Hong Kong, yes; but most everywhere else was independent. When VC10s came in, they shared the established worldwide routes – including the North Atlantic skyways.

Many of the people who worked British civil aviation in the era were, of course, ex RAF. Again, then, cultural comparison of attitudes and practices is enlightening, and, on the internet, we can contrast historical images with modern empirical evidence.

To me, such exercises suggest that the element of sacrifice clearly elicits inventive genius, and that war and disaster motivate the dynamic most deeply. So, to awaken the qualities His Grace and Oborne enumerate,** methinks it would behove us to raise awareness about the war we must fight for survival. Our present battle may be more spiritual and cultural than physical (except for unbridled sensuality), but it is as much a war as any that mobilised past accomplishments. And it is true that technical advances accrue from wartime; consider, for example, how WWI&II highlighted the urgent needs for: radar, atomic energy, jet engines, computerisation, plastic and orthopaedic surgery, medical rehabilitation techniques, and even that language we have used to optimise communication, etc.

So I say we need not only conservation, but re-instatement of our standards, principles and motivation.

Let the euSSR go its way. If we activate our own oxygen lines (lifelines) as a priority, we’ll still be here to help them when they need reviving.
___________
**(“loyalty, [practicality], duty, patriotism, humility, service”)

25 December 2012 at 07:25  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Non Mouse

I agree with your posts. But. we now need to fight for our culture and spirituality which is slipping away. Multiculturalism doesn't foster loyalty at all, and the governments don't seem to care about competitiveness anymore since we joined the EU.

Most companies share designs these days. This is ok for a period of time as we see in the auto mobile industry cars are all pretty much the same with shared chassis, gearboxes etc. This takes away the desire and drive for excellence and originality which produces totally new products that push boundaries. So as the EU sinks we sink with it. We need to change our culture and regain competitiveness again with a loyal government that does not sell us short.

If most of our government were employed as sales representatives they would have been fired long ago for failing to support, promote and achieve sales targets of own products.

The Japanese were the worst car manufacturers in the world with their unreliable rust buckets that were expensive for parts, but managed to regain a foothold in the market and are now one of the best and cheapest for parts.

When I think of those talented engineers, yes probably ex RAF chaps, at De Havilland who painstakingly took apart and analysed every part of an early model Comet that had crash landed, to be able to pin point the faults, the main one being the square windows, and to go on to produce the mk 4 which went on to be a huge success - I think Norman Tebbit was a co-pilot and navigator on them. We seem to have given up altogether now, and if the Krauts had said yes no doubt we would have sold off what we own of BAE as well. Our governments are too short term and fail to see or have the long term vision as well.

Apologies for long post, sleep is eluding me.


26 December 2012 at 04:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

Yes, Marie -- it's depressing. Of plans for the future, perhaps too few have registered the action of the mighty frogules ... who announced, in 2005, their project to develop a new SST with the Japanese. That's a replacement for Concorde (which we obviously spelt with an "e" to appease the ancient enemy...).


29 December 2012 at 00:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older