Below is the email sent by David Irving to Daniel Finkelstein at the Times. It confirms what a complete low-life he really is. If you want to make your views known about what you think about Mr Irving then feel free to email him directly at Focalp@aol.com
From: Focalp@aol.com [mailto:Focalp@aol.com]
Sent: 28 May 2009 20:51
To: Finkelstein, Daniel
Subject: fan-mail from David Irving
Dear Daniel Finkelstein
Read your article about scapegoats on the way back from Oslo yesterday, a real feel-good article, which had my friends and me guffawing to the end. It was like watching somebody constipated with hatred seated on the crapper - you did not manage to get out the real stuff until the very end, the last two paragraphs, what you had so obviously been saving up for throughout.
And even then you missed the point: you folks - you know whom I mean - never, ever, ask the real money-question "Why us?"
If I was a Jew, and I don't think I am, I'd be asking the killers with their fingers on the trigger, as I lay at the bottom of the pit, not "Who are you?" (pace Daniel Goldhagen); but the rather more pertinent "Why us?"
Might save y'all a lot of trouble in the future, if you ever get round to that question. Or is it "anti-semitic" even to ask?
David Irving
Lake End House,
Dorney,Windsor
SL4 6QS
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The UN must respond to North Korea with action and not words
The brinkmanship that North Korea is renowned for has suddenly moved into explosive new territory with the detonation of a 10 to 20-kiloton nuclear blast measuring some 4.7 on the Richter scale. The crisis shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-il seeking to gauge the mettle of US president Barack Obama as well as cement a leadership succession plan for what appears his impending stand-down as the country's dictator.The latest test, as well as three short-range missile tests, follow a long-range ballistic missile test in early April that was widely believed a disguised nuclear missile test. But it is the massive expansion in payload of the new underground nuclear test - up exponentially on North Korea's October 2006 blast of 0.5 to 1 kiloton - that is causing the most distress. That and the belief by analysts that North Korea's plutonium stocks are sufficient for it to arm between six and 12 small nuclear bombs.
Past tests have been used as bargaining chips to attract foreign aid and economic concessions for his starving country. This time, however, it seems domestic politics - and a hawkish administration biting sharply at his heels - are driving the dictator's agenda. North Korea has time and again proved itself a dangerous and recalcitrant state. A rogue state? Yes and one that appears more than happy, and well-equipped, to wreak untold misery on innocents.
The question for President Obama and for Gordon Brown is not if they should be respond but how.
Past tests have been used as bargaining chips to attract foreign aid and economic concessions for his starving country. This time, however, it seems domestic politics - and a hawkish administration biting sharply at his heels - are driving the dictator's agenda. North Korea has time and again proved itself a dangerous and recalcitrant state. A rogue state? Yes and one that appears more than happy, and well-equipped, to wreak untold misery on innocents.
The question for President Obama and for Gordon Brown is not if they should be respond but how.
Monday, May 25, 2009
A hard-right future? My latest piece for Tribune
What would a future Tory government actually be like? If a recent survey of Tory PPCs is anything to go by then it will be dominated by largely illiberal, Eurosceptic, pro-nuclear MPs who believe that England does not get a fair deal in terms of the distribution of the United Kingdom’s finances.
To find out more about the potential hard-right future facing Britain read my latest piece for Tribune (or preferably go out and buy a copy).
To find out more about the potential hard-right future facing Britain read my latest piece for Tribune (or preferably go out and buy a copy).
Andrew MacKay and the good people of Bracknell
This is one of the most sobering things I have watched in relation to the recent expenses scandal. Wghat did Mr MacKay really expect?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Stoke - just the sort of place that hates the message of the far right!
The piece about Stoke and the BNP in today's New Statesman makes for depressing reading. Partly because of its bleak analysis and partly because it fails to offer any hope or see any signs of how things might improve.
We have known for months that the BNP has been busy exploiting the present economic crisis and that it could easily end up winning seats in the European parliament in June. Back in October I wrote a piece for the Guardian suggesting that one reason for the BNP's growing support has been its ability to respond to and exploit genuine local grievances. Since then we have had the debacle of MP expense claims which will only end up exacerbating peoples' distrust of the political establishment and could help turn even more people toward the far right.
What I found disappointing about the New Statesman piece is that it offered no route map as to how the many decent, hard working Labour members and supporters in Stoke might fight back and counter the depressing, hateful and bigoted message that the BNP is set on spreading. The people of the Stoke have a fine and distinguished record in promoting and defending equality (it is the birthplace of Hugh Bourne the 19th century campaigner for education for children and for treating women as equals). The increase in support for the BNP is evidence of a new challenge in British politics. In the past the battleground (sometimes literally) of left v right politics centred on our inner cities. This is no longer the case. The BNP has begun to develop a network of suburban supporters, people who are openly willing to admit not only to supporting a racist and bigoted political party but to doing so with pride and patriotic fervour. Any increase in support for the BNP raises all sorts of questions about how progressive politics deals with the rise of the far right in Britain. The Labour Party has long argued that, as a nation, we should do whatever we can to tackle xenophobia and racial hatred from wherever it surfaces. This, of course, is right but the key question is how is this best achieved?
One way to begin is to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. The BNP is often successful in so-called “forgotten” white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives (which encourages the growth of myths and rumour). A well used BNP tactic is to use this information to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a “safe space” for ordinary working people to air their feelings - they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour.
Gordon Brown has been too quiet on the issue of the BNP. He would send out a powerful message to his party’s core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new “coalition of the willing” that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis. Brown should back calls for the creation of a multi-racial, multi-faith and cross-party movement that can help unite and lead the great majority of people in Britain who feel repulsed by the rhetoric and actions of the likes of the BNP. Brown should explain that the reasons for Labour openly taking on the bigots and the bullies of the far right are not purely tactical and strategic. He should make it clear that the values that underpin the Labour movement demand that it be done
Stoke is just the sort of place where local people want to be treated - and want their neighbours to be treated - fairly. They don't want favours and they don't want special treatment. The majority of people of Stoke hate what the BNP stands for and would just love to get back to voting for Labour out of conviction and not simply out of convention.
We have known for months that the BNP has been busy exploiting the present economic crisis and that it could easily end up winning seats in the European parliament in June. Back in October I wrote a piece for the Guardian suggesting that one reason for the BNP's growing support has been its ability to respond to and exploit genuine local grievances. Since then we have had the debacle of MP expense claims which will only end up exacerbating peoples' distrust of the political establishment and could help turn even more people toward the far right.
What I found disappointing about the New Statesman piece is that it offered no route map as to how the many decent, hard working Labour members and supporters in Stoke might fight back and counter the depressing, hateful and bigoted message that the BNP is set on spreading. The people of the Stoke have a fine and distinguished record in promoting and defending equality (it is the birthplace of Hugh Bourne the 19th century campaigner for education for children and for treating women as equals). The increase in support for the BNP is evidence of a new challenge in British politics. In the past the battleground (sometimes literally) of left v right politics centred on our inner cities. This is no longer the case. The BNP has begun to develop a network of suburban supporters, people who are openly willing to admit not only to supporting a racist and bigoted political party but to doing so with pride and patriotic fervour. Any increase in support for the BNP raises all sorts of questions about how progressive politics deals with the rise of the far right in Britain. The Labour Party has long argued that, as a nation, we should do whatever we can to tackle xenophobia and racial hatred from wherever it surfaces. This, of course, is right but the key question is how is this best achieved?
One way to begin is to stop simply talking about the symptoms of dissatisfaction and address some of the underlying causes that have resulted in traditional Labour supporters taking refuge in the policies of the far right. The BNP is often successful in so-called “forgotten” white areas where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. The BNP often finds support in a context of significant social problems: high unemployment, deprivation, lack of educational achievement, high crime rates, drugs, and people of different ethnic backgrounds living apparently separate lives (which encourages the growth of myths and rumour). A well used BNP tactic is to use this information to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour and in many cases feel neglected by this government. Many of these people feel that they have only two places they can go. One is not to vote, the other is to vote for the far right. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a “safe space” for ordinary working people to air their feelings - they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being thought of or even accused of being a racist. In the likes of Stoke the BNP is developing a network of supporters who are now openly willing to admit to not only voting for a racist and bigoted political party, but are doing so with pride and patriotic fervour.
Gordon Brown has been too quiet on the issue of the BNP. He would send out a powerful message to his party’s core supporters if he were to personally throw his weight behind a call for a new “coalition of the willing” that will help to blunt the advance of the far-right in this country by addressing some of the genuine concerns of white working-class voters while at the same time openly challenging those concerns that have no factual or legitimate basis. Brown should back calls for the creation of a multi-racial, multi-faith and cross-party movement that can help unite and lead the great majority of people in Britain who feel repulsed by the rhetoric and actions of the likes of the BNP. Brown should explain that the reasons for Labour openly taking on the bigots and the bullies of the far right are not purely tactical and strategic. He should make it clear that the values that underpin the Labour movement demand that it be done
Stoke is just the sort of place where local people want to be treated - and want their neighbours to be treated - fairly. They don't want favours and they don't want special treatment. The majority of people of Stoke hate what the BNP stands for and would just love to get back to voting for Labour out of conviction and not simply out of convention.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Catholic Church and systemic child abuse in Ireland
The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland may just now be beginning to understand how much it relies on trust - now that it has so little of it. Yesterday’s publication of the truly shocking 2,600-page report by Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse found that rape was "endemic" in more than 250 Irish Catholic care institutions from the 1930s to the 1990s, and that the church in Ireland protected paedophiles in its ranks from arrest. Trust is a social practice. Humans are social beings who swim in an ocean of trust. What happens when this ocean begins to drain away - as is the case with the Catholic Church in Ireland - is that we become sceptical, often cynical and perhaps even a little paranoid. The Ryan Commission has once again highlighted the failure of Church leaders to act. Some of the more disturbing aspects yesterday’s report were the attempts by the Catholic Church to control information, prevent public disclosure and silence dissent, even when it heard the anguished cries of abused children and their families – and not for the first time.
The reality that is dawning on some for the very first time is that the Church is a human institution; it is managed by and led humans with all their failings, including susceptibility to the corruptions of power and mistaken judgment. Many mistakes and cover-ups, involving the abuse of children by priests and brothers, have been made by bishops. What is clear is that the responsibility for resolving or moving beyond the present crisis of trust lies primarily with the bishops themselves. The problem is that the Catholic Church appears to be suffering from a form of paralysis. The people who can do something (the conference of Catholic bishops) have apparently done all they want to do or think they can do as a group. Yet those who want to do something to help to move things on, namely the laity and some clergy, have no real vehicle for doing so. Despite the long-ingrained tendency of lay men and women to defer to the hierarchy, many are only now waking up to the fact that they have both the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many of us are now only too tragically aware of the consequences that follow from the concentration and misuse of power and lay deference to hierarchical authority.
For too long the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has, for whatever reason, refused to talk openly, candidly and even compassionately about the crisis of trust that clearly now exists. It will be difficult to regain that trust but without it there can be no growth or development and no justice for those who suffered the terrible abuse by those who preached a message of love, fidelity and mercy.
The reality that is dawning on some for the very first time is that the Church is a human institution; it is managed by and led humans with all their failings, including susceptibility to the corruptions of power and mistaken judgment. Many mistakes and cover-ups, involving the abuse of children by priests and brothers, have been made by bishops. What is clear is that the responsibility for resolving or moving beyond the present crisis of trust lies primarily with the bishops themselves. The problem is that the Catholic Church appears to be suffering from a form of paralysis. The people who can do something (the conference of Catholic bishops) have apparently done all they want to do or think they can do as a group. Yet those who want to do something to help to move things on, namely the laity and some clergy, have no real vehicle for doing so. Despite the long-ingrained tendency of lay men and women to defer to the hierarchy, many are only now waking up to the fact that they have both the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many of us are now only too tragically aware of the consequences that follow from the concentration and misuse of power and lay deference to hierarchical authority.
For too long the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has, for whatever reason, refused to talk openly, candidly and even compassionately about the crisis of trust that clearly now exists. It will be difficult to regain that trust but without it there can be no growth or development and no justice for those who suffered the terrible abuse by those who preached a message of love, fidelity and mercy.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Glasgow North East: who will enter the contest?
Michael Martin's decision to stand down will, of course, mean a by-election in the Glasgow North East constituency (probably in July). But who will stand? The SNP will be confident of snatching it from Labour but should we expect some high profile 'celebrity' candidates?
Should future Labour PPCs commit to an ethics pledge?
How are we going to restore trust and confidence in 'the system' after the events of the past few days? The news that any Labour MP who broke expenses rules will not be allowed to stand at the next election is a positive first step but what else can be done?
One idea is for Labour PPCs to pledge to stick by an ethical and operational code of conduct which he/she would then be compelled to self-evaluate against at least yearly and before local people are given the opportunity to scrutinise his/her actions via an annual constituency meeting where the MP would report back on his/her work.
For example Labour PPCs might commit to:
Monthly on-line publication of all expenses and allowance claims.
No paid or unpaid employment outside of their full-time position of being an MP.
Holding monthly surgeries (I am still amazed that some do not).
What else might we add? I think it best that we do not have too many and that they are reasonable and 'doable.'
One idea is for Labour PPCs to pledge to stick by an ethical and operational code of conduct which he/she would then be compelled to self-evaluate against at least yearly and before local people are given the opportunity to scrutinise his/her actions via an annual constituency meeting where the MP would report back on his/her work.
For example Labour PPCs might commit to:
Monthly on-line publication of all expenses and allowance claims.
No paid or unpaid employment outside of their full-time position of being an MP.
Holding monthly surgeries (I am still amazed that some do not).
What else might we add? I think it best that we do not have too many and that they are reasonable and 'doable.'
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Not voting on June 4th is as good as voting BNP or UKIP
I think it was Jed Bartlett who said that decisions are made by those that show up. He was right. The June 4th election date (local and Euro) is in danger of going down in history as the date that hard-right and the far-right political parties made significant gains in Britain.
The only way to stop this is to actually turn up and vote (preferably for Labour) on June 4th. Only a matter of months ago we aspired to be part of the the generation that made poverty history. The danger is that we may end up being a part of the generation that gave the likes of Nick Griffin a future in British politics.
The only way to stop this is to actually turn up and vote (preferably for Labour) on June 4th. Only a matter of months ago we aspired to be part of the the generation that made poverty history. The danger is that we may end up being a part of the generation that gave the likes of Nick Griffin a future in British politics.
What Gordon and Labour's NEC need to do next
The polls were already fairly dire for Labour before the expense saga started - the latest polls point towards a possible meltdown unless radical and swift action is taken by both Gordon Brown and the NEC. Public perception cannot be ignored and unless it is careful the Labour party could end up having to fight seats at the next general election against Martin Bell type candidates who will be ready to exploit public anger and dismay to devastating effect.
If we are to regain some lost ground and help restore trust and confidence in the system we (Labour) need to:
1. Make it clear that it will de-select any sitting MP who, as a result of her/his abuse of their parliamentary expenses or allowance, has brought the Labour party into disrepute.
2. Insist that all Labour MPs hold public meetings in their constituencies in the next few weeks in order to seek the views of their constituents as to what should be done next.
3. Insist that no Labour MP will be allowed to 'flip' her/his second home allowance between now and the start of the next general election (or until a new system is in place).
4. Require all Labour MPs, MEPs, Peers and Councillors to publish their latest expense claims on the web with immediate effect.
5. Require all sitting Labour MPs to commit to surrendering any profit made from the sale of a second home that was funded by the ACA back to the tax payer.
What do you think?
If we are to regain some lost ground and help restore trust and confidence in the system we (Labour) need to:
1. Make it clear that it will de-select any sitting MP who, as a result of her/his abuse of their parliamentary expenses or allowance, has brought the Labour party into disrepute.
2. Insist that all Labour MPs hold public meetings in their constituencies in the next few weeks in order to seek the views of their constituents as to what should be done next.
3. Insist that no Labour MP will be allowed to 'flip' her/his second home allowance between now and the start of the next general election (or until a new system is in place).
4. Require all Labour MPs, MEPs, Peers and Councillors to publish their latest expense claims on the web with immediate effect.
5. Require all sitting Labour MPs to commit to surrendering any profit made from the sale of a second home that was funded by the ACA back to the tax payer.
What do you think?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Real politics: Miliband should demand Aung San Suu Ky's immediate release
The news that Aung San Suu Ky is to face trial for breaching the conditions of her detention under house arrest puts the MP expense nonsense into perspective. Ms Suu Kyi will stand trial on 18 May and was yesterday taken to a prison from her home in Rangoon, where she has spent most of the past 19 years, to hear the charges. The US man whose uninvited visit to her home led to the latest arrest and charges, will also be tried on immigration and security offences, the lawyer added.
David Miliband should demand that Aung San Suu Ky is released immediately - forget greedy MPs and the sleaze of the past few days - we need to remind ourselves of our core values and that our moral compass should direct us away from the gutter and towards the dignity and respect that comes from being prepared to live out one's convictions as well as merely articulating them.
David Miliband should demand that Aung San Suu Ky is released immediately - forget greedy MPs and the sleaze of the past few days - we need to remind ourselves of our core values and that our moral compass should direct us away from the gutter and towards the dignity and respect that comes from being prepared to live out one's convictions as well as merely articulating them.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
On-line poll on MPs expenses: is de-selection a possibility?
Things are probably going to get worse before they get better in terms of the daily 'drip-drip' about MPs expenses. But what can, should CLPs or Tory Associations do? Do they issue supportive statements of their MPs or would it be justified to de-select an MP who appears to have claimed excessive and unjustified expenses?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Friday, May 08, 2009
MP expenses: the good, the bad and the ugly
The coverage about the parliamentary expenses of members of the Cabinet in today’s papers generates, as usual, a good deal of heat but precious little light. Of course, as Harriet Harman admitted this morning, “It looks bad,” and it is probably no coincidence that the embarrassing revelations have emerged in a Tory supporting newspaper (Telegraph) only three weeks before the local and European elections. However Tory MPs will, in all likelihood, remain fairly quiet. Why? Because they know it is only a matter of time before many of their colleagues are also publicly named and shamed for apparently excessive and possibly outlandish claims of their own.
What really riles the courtroom of public opinion are the expense claims made by MPs that, though within the broadest interpretation of the guidelines, feel like an abuse the public’s trust.
The truth about MPs’ expenses is that there good reasons for some, some pretty bad reasons for others and occasionally some claims that are just downright ugly. For example:
· Good (fair) expenses: It is only right and proper that MPs who live outside of London should receive an allowance for a second home – however there is, in my view, no justification for such properties to be fitted out with top-range furniture and gadgets paid for with taxpayers’ money.
· Bad (unfair) expenses: I believe it perfectly reasonable for MPs to get ‘Freeview’ so they can watch the news channels and the Parliament channel but there is absolutely no justification for the public footing the bill for Sky Sports or Sky Movies.
· Ugly expenses: Employing your son as a researcher and paying him £45,000 over two-and-a-half year period while he was studying full-time at Newcastle University.
Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is quite correct when he argues that the issue of expenses and pay should not be left to politicians to sort out for themselves. If public confidence is to ever be restored then what is required is a thorough, detailed and independent inquiry carried out by individuals with no political agenda of their own, an inquiry that would look at all the evidence and would be open to anyone who wanted to contribute. The next few weeks are going to be uncomfortable for many inhabitants of the Westminster village but sadly you cannot have the gain without the pain
What really riles the courtroom of public opinion are the expense claims made by MPs that, though within the broadest interpretation of the guidelines, feel like an abuse the public’s trust.
The truth about MPs’ expenses is that there good reasons for some, some pretty bad reasons for others and occasionally some claims that are just downright ugly. For example:
· Good (fair) expenses: It is only right and proper that MPs who live outside of London should receive an allowance for a second home – however there is, in my view, no justification for such properties to be fitted out with top-range furniture and gadgets paid for with taxpayers’ money.
· Bad (unfair) expenses: I believe it perfectly reasonable for MPs to get ‘Freeview’ so they can watch the news channels and the Parliament channel but there is absolutely no justification for the public footing the bill for Sky Sports or Sky Movies.
· Ugly expenses: Employing your son as a researcher and paying him £45,000 over two-and-a-half year period while he was studying full-time at Newcastle University.
Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is quite correct when he argues that the issue of expenses and pay should not be left to politicians to sort out for themselves. If public confidence is to ever be restored then what is required is a thorough, detailed and independent inquiry carried out by individuals with no political agenda of their own, an inquiry that would look at all the evidence and would be open to anyone who wanted to contribute. The next few weeks are going to be uncomfortable for many inhabitants of the Westminster village but sadly you cannot have the gain without the pain
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Britain is sleep walking towards a hard right future
If the polls are to be believed Britain could well end up with a Tory government in the summer of 2010. Let's be clear about what this means. It does not mean a friendly, hood-hugging, vote blue go green, compassionate, one nation Tory administration. Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie seems to revel in the fact that the latest survey of Tory MP hopefuls indicates that his party is moving further and further to the right. Indeed he appears to be quite happy that his leader's attempt to ensure that candidates selected reflect the caring and compassionate side of the Tory party has spectacularly failed. According to Montgomerie the collective views of newly selected Tory candidates will give heart to the Thatcherite wing of the party and cause the likes of Ken Clarke to ponder where it all went wrong.
The latest survey of Tory candidates carried out by Conservative Home makes very interesting reading, however the questions asked are probably more interesting than the answers. For example the survey contains not a single question on housing, education or health - apparently the public is more interested in whether Tory candidates support the right of Catholics or other religious adoption charities to decline to place children with same sex couples. Candidates are asked about Iran but not about Iraq, about nuclear power but not about the need for more renewables. It would appear that Tory Associations up and down the land have been selecting candidates that reflect their own, traditional - often reactionary - views and not those of the leadership. Having said that Cameron himself has changed. Following the 2007 summer of despair Cameron was warned by his whips that he needed to embrace more "traditional" core Tory issues like Europe, crime and the family. Yet again a newly elected Tory leader was forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote. The survey suggests that the Tories are still selecting candidates who believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views.
Progressive politics? Forget it. Montgomerie's survey tells us a great deal about the Tory party of today and what it would be like if - heaven forbid - it were to form the next government. It tells us that Tory candidates are largely Eurosceptic, pretty much pro-nuclear and believe that England does not get a fair deal in terms of the distribution of the nation's finances. What goes around comes around, the hard right is coming and we need to expose them for what they are, who they are and what they stand for.
The latest survey of Tory candidates carried out by Conservative Home makes very interesting reading, however the questions asked are probably more interesting than the answers. For example the survey contains not a single question on housing, education or health - apparently the public is more interested in whether Tory candidates support the right of Catholics or other religious adoption charities to decline to place children with same sex couples. Candidates are asked about Iran but not about Iraq, about nuclear power but not about the need for more renewables. It would appear that Tory Associations up and down the land have been selecting candidates that reflect their own, traditional - often reactionary - views and not those of the leadership. Having said that Cameron himself has changed. Following the 2007 summer of despair Cameron was warned by his whips that he needed to embrace more "traditional" core Tory issues like Europe, crime and the family. Yet again a newly elected Tory leader was forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote. The survey suggests that the Tories are still selecting candidates who believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views.
Progressive politics? Forget it. Montgomerie's survey tells us a great deal about the Tory party of today and what it would be like if - heaven forbid - it were to form the next government. It tells us that Tory candidates are largely Eurosceptic, pretty much pro-nuclear and believe that England does not get a fair deal in terms of the distribution of the nation's finances. What goes around comes around, the hard right is coming and we need to expose them for what they are, who they are and what they stand for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)