Fabian History Lesson

This Cinders of a blog does not get enough passing trade to refer to its ‘readership‘, ( although unlike Liberal Conspiracy, readers are slightly more populous than writers ), .If it had a readership, though , they might have noticed mention of Sunder Katwala ,the General Secretary of Fabian Society
“ Fabian Society ?” ,you say ,“Is that really still going ? ”. Yes , like Bernard Cribbins and the Commonwealth , it is 'un-dead' , shall we say ,and well placed to provide a historical perspective .Take Nick Robinson’s ‘Brown putsch ’ howler …
“….a man or woman who has not been elected ...would replace a man who has himself not been elected by the public. This is without precedent -”
The GC ( as I will now refer to Sunder),quibbled thusly …“.the Conservative government resigned, and let the Liberals govern, in December 1905 (,blah blah) ..Arthur Balfour was selected, without a General Election, in 1902 to replace his Uncle Lord Salisbury as PM, and that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman replaced him as Prime Minister in 1905 …” . Virtually standard practice then....
I must be fair the GC intended self deprecating humour , he is not bad chap . I only mention it to demonstrate his acute his sense of history informing the present .All the more worrying that this must include his employers , an organisation avowedly committed to Machiavellian deceit ,and with a Nietzschean contempt for ordinary people
Lets start with Fabian number 1, Sidney Webb , usually mentioned with Beatrice . The Webbs supported Soviet Union until their death and wrote uncritically of Stalin's during agricultural collectivisation purges and the gulag system. Not afraid to break a few eggs to make an omelette then.
This is never more obvious than when they turn to eugenics , a great enthusiasm of most prominent Fabians . Sidney laid it out clearly “ No consistent eugenicist can be laissez faire… he must interfere interfere interfere”. He worried that the, ”wrong people “ were outbreeding the “right ones “ which he feared would cause the country to fall to the “Irish or the Jews”. Sweet sweet man , no wonder he is so venerated by the left
Comrade Wells ( HG) supported the extermination of the “Darker races”… to create the New Republic he said “ swarms of black , brown and dirty white and yellow people would have to go” ..” and “ It is in the sterilisation of failure and not the selection of success for breeding , that the possibility of an improvement to human stock lies”
Brother Shaw (GB) was similarly enamoured .“ The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of Man” he declared . He advocated the abolition of marriage and its replacement with eugenically acceptable polygamy under the auspices of the “Department of Evolution”. He further recommend a “Husband stud Farm”, to eliminate the “Yahoo , whose vote would wreck the Commonwealth".For criminal and undesirable elements were to be placed .." in a lethal chamber and get rid of them”
Pah ..I can hear them saying , Pah pah ! Shaw was an entertainer a polemicist we do not take him seriously . Harder to say that about the lately exhumed John Maynard Keynes who served on the British Eugenics societies board of Directors in 1945..yes that’s 1945 a time when the horrors Nazi experiments were known to him. The New Statesman (founded by Webb) and the Manchester Guardian were also supporters to one extent or another as was Harold Laski Julian Huxley and many many more.
Now I am not saying Sunder Katwala , I mean the GC ,supports a programme of sterilisation and slaughter for our own good ,but his keen sense of history will surely detect ,as I do, that the instinct to “Interfere interfere interfere” as Webb put it , is unabated in Fabian and progressive thinking . My wish to remain unimproved remains indefatigable and the bad news is Sunder..I`m breeding !

Who Do We Vote Against ?

Just sent this to Mr. Dale,hardly news to him , but I did it because I cannot believe that no-one seems to be pointing out the bleeding obvious reason New Labour are unelectable.

Iain I have no doubt you have noticed but anyway .... In the Guardian G2 the other day there was a long comparison between Ed and David Milliband supposedly representing the two wings of the Party about to do battle . Sunder Katwala and others are talking about the fight /renewal , after the election and it seems to be universally accepted that Gordon Brown cannot survive as PM if elected .
Isn’t it quite incredible that New Labour are going to the electorate in this shape .The only logic for not getting rid of Brown was initially because there would have to be an a election, and then because it was too close to an election. None of that applies the second the election is over and this seems to be openly admitted

So ...New Labour cannot tell the electorate who will actually be running the country. I just wondered if you might want to draw attention to that fact surely that is an insulting proposition for the voter .

Who do we vote against ?

Doubt he`ll read it but I feel better

I Believe ...

This , from the likeable, but spineless Hopi Sen, requires no comment :

'I’ve long believed that Gordon Brown’s fate is in his own hands. Quite right too. If he really believed that someone else would do a better job in winning the next election, I think he would chose to stand down as party leader.
You might be sceptical about this, (and I can imagine the reaction of certain people to this suggestion!) but I believe it’s true. Gordon Brown has served the Labour movement for thirty years, and I’m certain is acutely aware that giving Labour the best chance of working in the interests of the British people is far more important than the career of one man.'

Fantasy

The old firm political derby is in full swing with high tackles all over the shop 'Black-hole 'says Labour , 'Dodgy Dossier' says Conservative, and a Nation almost faints with excitement. The distinct possibility of a sovereign debt crisis renders all this slightly less grounded than my recent promotion of Megan Fox above long time top fantasy squeeze Beyoncé, but , from the primordial gloop of bluster and lies , the electorate will extract the “Message “they like best .... It seems to work
Or should I say the message they like least, because the first past the post system exentuates the powers of dismissal . I like this , and I am delighted to welcome Nick Clegg aboard the anti PR train, currently iced up near Crawley.
Nick Clegg told Radio Four “..an election is about people giving politicians the marching orders , not about politicians saying , before the people have had their say oh we are going to X Y and Z “
Well said Nick who forgot to add “..or indeed after they have had their say” ,as in PR.Strange then that Liberals have been ideologically committed to this fraud ever since they were committed to FPTP under Lloyds George ( fancy). Clegg says he feels obliged to support whichever Party has the bigger mandate ... in other words he stands for precisely feck all.
The Guardian recently wondered if a Labour / Conservative coalition was so impossible . Well old Ralph Milliband would be turning in his grave at 78 RPM and I `m not keen , but you have to ask yourself , is anything, barring Chris Huhne ,as bad as Nick Clegg. In my fantasy just as clueless Clegg walks in to sell himself to the highest bidder, marginalised Blairites, having shed their skin once more , emerge from the curtain to tell him he and his worthless Party are not required. Yes ( punch air ...)..*bliss face * LOL etc.
BTW ...Is it just me or is Michael Portillo by far the most intelligent thinker on politics the economy and just about everything there is , around . Another fantasy, but old arguments aside, the country badly needs people of his quality .Is there any way he could be brought back into Government ?

The Wisdom Of A Four Year Old

Mrs. N ,s father was from Trinidad.We met before I took any great interest in politics and the subject of colour never presented itself as an issue one needed to have an opinion about . Looking back ,this was partly because the little woman was brought up by her Welsh mother, in no-nonsense Bermondsey and has little patience with an “identity” ,that to her is a pose. It is also , not a subject , one has to obsess about ;and I don`t
I sometimes regret, therefore, that in taking an interest in the cultural wars over the soul of England ,I have become so much more aware of the meanings race has for many .
When I got home last night I was told that our eldest son Elliot , a curly haired and sloe eyed four year old , was under the impression he was white . Don`t imagine that this was a dramatic moment , one has many bizarre conversations with a child .Still the snake had slithered into the garden ....” Does he think black is worse than white ? ... “What made him assume he was white ?” and so on
We had a chat in which I explained that we were all slightly different colours .I was the palest , mummy the brownest , and he was roughly half way between his brothers one of whom is dark the other fair . I concluded that we were all the best, a paradox that he is still entirely comfortable with ...and then he said , “...anyway Daddy would you get on with the story ...”.

Just one of those silly things really. This morning I read that the French Government’s attempt to define its National identity had become emerded with vitriolic rows about immigration and race, and so it goes on . I has previously wondered if our children would qualify as black enough to get on short lists and quotats even the prospect that one might be black enough the other not ? I have no idea , in a small way , though , I thought , not for the first time , that any special treatment of anyone , good or bad on the basis of their colour can only be a harmful thing.Cultural rivalries and judgements are valid , National alleigance and memory are good things but as to colour , the best advice is to .."Get on with the story ...". ..and I did

Donal Blaney , (Its The Way He Tells Them...)

Perhaps I have misjudged him, but if this is typical of the brilliantined Mr. Blaney`s output and of young Conservatives then I fear we have a long way to go . I spaketh thusly :

I am a Conservative , married , a Christian , albeit a pretty inadequate one , and an ex resident of Islington now living in Lewes . You’d think I would be on your side but I am not. There is a question here about the status of the Church of England and the rights of religious groups which I am going to ignore .In fact I am going to ignore the bits and pieces altogether . The tone of this piece is unpleasant and tone is important
I do not like your reference to sins and sinners in this context . The sin and the sinner are the same thing unless you regard the sinner as best by unnatural demons which I take it is the way you regard homosexuality . ‘Victorian’ would be kind Donal (En passant I do not find any more intolerance in the sticks than I did in Islington but I digress )
The there is this :“… don't groom or proselytize at kids. “
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of connection between paedophiles and homosexuals ? You certainly seem to be and if that is the case I wonder how you stay chums with Iain Dale , especially as he is such a sulker .
“…Just as they feel uneasy at overt displays of affection by randy homosexuals, they feel uneasy at overt displays of affection by horny heterosexual couples too. They not unreasonably wish people would save such conduct for the privacy of their own bedrooms “
I do not feel uneasy about displays of gay affection and I think that whilst you and Nick Griffin who made the same pint on QT may describe a fact ,it would be nice to see a Conservative as part of the solution not the problem. Get over it , love is beautiful thing Donal . I am yet to see sodomy over the check out at Tescos but if I do I will object along the lines you suggest.
Marriage ,of course ,predates Christianity and Christian marriage has not always been the norm in this country. So what . I am a fervent supporter of marriage above all because for unmarried couples the separation rate up the child’s fifth year is one in two as compared to one in twelve . Furthermore I see many of the ills of our country as caused by the failure to support marriage .It is important then , that it adapts , includes, and reaches out to allies . I appreciate there are competing liberties involved ,but the starting point must be a recognition of love loyalty and its need for public expression .Your piece has a queasy and at times prurient mean spiritedness about it. Bad show , poor form , don`t like it .

I shall ask God if he agrees tommorow , I am sure he will .

The Hangover

Our Polly , opens the year with an out and out attack on Brown .Never mind that she will be defending him in a week or so , here she surgically removes the layers of spin and reveals the depth of New Labour mendacity and failure . Her conclusions are the usual dreamy balls, but the disgnosis shows us why she remains the queen of hard left dissent . Have a look but this is the meat of it ...

The delusional tone of Gordon Brown's new year message says it all: "I believe we can create a new decade of prosperity with opportunities fairly shared amongst those who work hard and play by the rules." Just about every word of this raises questions about his record that he can never answer: GDP has fallen by 5% in the last year, taking us back to 2005; growth in his time was profoundly unfairly shared – over half the population saw virtually no growth at all; GDP per capita is a fraudulent measure that disguises how almost all growth went to the top 10%, and most to the top 1% – while he and Tony Blair did no more than see that the back half didn't fall too far behind. Middle Britain did badly however hard they worked and "played by the rules". Whose rules?
The 70% who owned homes were soothed by the feel-good compensation of seeing the value of their property soar by 68% in real terms in the unchecked bubble. So people borrowed to make up for no growth in their pay....Is the prime minister's "new decade of prosperity" the same as his last decade of "no more boom and bust"? Yet again Brown repeats in his message that the "crisis ignited in the US housing market and then came rolling across the Atlantic towards us" – as if our own housing bubble and over–reliance on the City were not contributors to our plight, along with failing to tax enough to cover Labour's popular and necessary public spending increases.
Brown cannot admit the monumental error he and Ed Balls made in their economic policies because there are some mistakes just too big to apologise for.


Substitute "Spend less" ,for "tax more", and she dead right . She is also the first commentator I have read who has pointed out that for ordinary hard working people there was no boom never mind a perpetual one . These are the very people who pay all the tax and whose future is now mortgaged to the hilt. Reading this sharp analysis feels now like waking for a hangover .As each horror from the binge bobbs to the surface like a rotting corpse ,disbelief mounts and you can only bury your head in the pillow and weep. What were we thinking of ? What have we done ?!