Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 25 April 2008

Harman's 'spoof' resignation letter

Huge amusement at Raedwald Towers at the efforts of the naughty so-and-sos who have 'hacked' Harry Harman's official blog; no doubt she will now complain that her new £10k 'communications allowance' isn't nearly enough to prevent such malicious fun ...

Anyhow, her 'official' resignation letter to the one-eyed thief is worth preserving in full as I can't imagine even Labour will let the spoofed site stay up much longer;

Rt. Hon.Gordon Brown M.P.
Leader of the Labour Party/Prime Miniser
House of Commons

25 April 2008

I have been a member of the Labour Party for over 30 years, and have served for 26 years in the Parliamentary Party, in a variety of backbench and front bench roles. This has usually been a great pleasure, and always a great privilege. It is therefore with much sadness that I write you this letter. But you are entitled to know the truth.

Under your leadership the Labour Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.

For the first 25 years of my time in the House, in common I imagine with the great majority of my colleagues, it never occurred to me to leave the Party, whatever its current vicissitudes. Ties of familiarity, of friendship, and above all of commitment to constituency supporters are for all of us very strong and incredibly difficult to break. But they cannot be the basis for living a lie – for continuing in an organisation when one no longer has respect for its leadership or understanding of its aims. I have come to that appreciation slowly and painfully and as a result of many things, some of which are set out below.

The first horrible realisation that I might not be able to continue came last year. My initial reaction was to suppress it.

You had come to office as Leader of the Party committed to break a solemn agreement we had with the country to give them a referendum on the European Consitution, now known cunningly as the Lisbon Treaty. For seven months you vacillated, and during that time we had several conversations. It was quite clear to me that you had no qualms in principle about tearing up this agreement, and that it was only the balance of prevailing political pressures which led you ultimately to stop short of doing so i.e You are a wimp, Gordo!
You also broke your promise to let me be Deputy Prime Minister and run the Deputy Leadership elections unopposed, just like you.

Of course I knew that you had put yourself in a position such that if you gave the referendum you would be breaking other promises you had given to colleagues, and on which many of them had counted in voting for you at the leadership election where of course you were the only contestant. But that I fear only made the position worse. The trouble with trying to face both ways is that you are likely to lose everybody’s confidence.

Aside from the rather significant issues of principle involved, you have of course paid a practical price for your easy promises. You are the first Prime Minister of this country to be completely upstaged on his recent visit to America, by his holiness the pope, who by all accounts is a doddery old man. Up to, and very much including,Tony Blair, your superior predecessor.

I have never done business with people who deliberately break contracts, and I knew last year that if you did not give the European Referendum, or make me Deputy Prime Minister I could no longer remain in a party under your leadership.

In fact you held back and I tried to put this ugly incident out of my mind and carry on. But the last year has been a series of shocks and disappointments. You have displayed to the full both the vacuity and the cynicism of your favourite slogan “When I wake up every morning, something or other”.

One day in January, I think a Wednesday or Thursday, you and Alistair Darling discovered that David Cameron was to make a speech on your disgraceful 10p tax cut. You wished toavoid the hassle. So without any consultation with anyone – experts, think tanks, the industry, even the Shadow Cabinet – you announced a visit to the US, which was so cack-handed you managed to be upstaged by His Holiness. The PR pressures had overridden any considerations of economic rationality or national interest, or even what would have been to others normal businesslike prudence.

Equally it seems that your hasty rejection of Fidel Castro as a Hero of the Left nuclear energy as a “last resort” was also driven by your PR imperatives rather than by other considerations. Many colleagues hope that that will be the subject of your next u-turn.

You regularly (I think on a pre-arranged PR grid or timetable) make apparent policy statements which are then revealed to have no intended content at all. They appear to be made merely to strike a pose, to contribute to an image.

You thus sometimes treat important subjects with the utmost frivolity. Examples are “Britishness”, “Anti-Terrorism”, most recently, mass promotion of people who are not even Labour Party Members like Digby Jones to the government (In view of your complete failure to consult with anyone, within the Party or outside it, on many of the matters I have touched on, or on many others, the latter was perhaps intended as a joke).

Of course I could go on – but I’m tired.

Believe it or not I have no personal animus against you. You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming. As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the Party – even when, after my preferred candidate (Myself) chickened out as she didn’t think she had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. It was blindingly obvious that you were going to win. Although you have many positive qualities you have three, dithering, dourness and a terrible habit of picking your nose in public which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you currently hold and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.

Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the Party. I do not intend to leave public life. On the contrary I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, goodlooking and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share.

Because my constituents, to whose interests of course I remain devoted, are entitled to know the full background, I am releasing this letter to the press.
Statement to press

“The more I thought about it the more I realised that the only logical and honest thing to do was both to leave the Labour Party and join the Conservative Party, with which I have found myself in practice regularly in agreement.”

Time to say goodbye to Labour

Brown has always had an old fashioned socialist redistributive agenda. He's not a man of any great intellect, and the simplicity of taking money from those that have more of it and giving it to those that have less of it is a solution that he understands. Never mind the evidence or the economics. This is a stupidity and naivety born of having spent his entire adult life playing politics rather than doing something useful.

A decade of Brown's stealth taxes at a time of a booming economy could be, to some extent, hidden. A few grumbles, but increasing equity in property could be used to readdress the lifestyle balance and maintain the differentials that Brown was eroding. Thus Brown's stealth taxes helped fuel the credit boom; the more he stole, the more middle Britain borrowed. As his Leviathan Client State grew to massive proportions and life on Welfare became so comfortable that 5m Britons of working age were happy to spend the day on their DFS recliner glued to their 42" plasma TVs as millions of immigrant workers worked on their behalf, the warning voices grew louder.

And now the hangover has set in. It's as though the country has woken up and is asking itself how it could have been so stupid; by and large, we believe in meritocracy, and meritocratic wealth differentials have always been an effective spur to individuals to make the effort to 'better' themselves. Where's the incentive in a redistributive economy to earn an extra £1,000 if you only get to keep 35% or 40% of it?

A decade of deep damage to the nation's economy that it will take half a generation to reverse. Fiscal imprudence on a breathtaking scale. Another entire generation of Welfare slaves. The schools have failed. The Health Service has failed. We've lost control of the streets.

Labour have done this to the nation before, of course. Last time the measures to put it right were painful and deeply nationally divisive. This time they may never have another chance to screw it up. Britain is ready to say goodbye to Labour for good as a credible national party; the Yougov poll published today indicates that they're in for a savage kicking at next week's elections.


Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Forget St George, try St Edmund!

Let's face it, there's nothing very English about St George. He was a Lebanese economic migrant who took advantage of a Europe-wide shortage of dragon-killers at the time.

No, St Edmund remains my true English patron saint. For a start he was a Wuffinga, son of King Aethelweard, and an Anglian to his bones - which at least he had, unlike that foul rogue of a Dane, Ivar the Boneless, who killed him. Despite having no bones.

It was Edmund's banner, not George's, that was carried at Agincourt, despite the later propaganda by the Bard.

No, let's oust the middle eastern immigrant from our national Pantheon and reinstate England's true patron saint - I give you St Edmund!


MEPs have decided that they want to continue stealing public funds in obscurity; all moves to open up their flagrant, fraudulent abuse of tax funds to scrutiny are to be blocked. These people are scum; the entire European Parliament stinks worse than rotten mackerel, and if these thieves can't exercise even the most basic probity in their own conduct, what expectations can anyone have that the business of the European Parliament isn't mired in fraud, corruption, bribery, cheating and peculation on the most massive scale.

I can think of a suitable use for all those lamp posts outside the building, but it will take a lot of rope.

Tuesday, 22 April 2008

The new government and the new opposition

We are in an exciting time of adjustment. The old parties are slowly dying, and as the nation hovers on the edge of economic stasis none of them will dare raise the issue of State funding to keep them alive. The May 1st elections could well cement the political polarisation of the nation into north and south, with the rump of the Labour party alive in the north and the Tories the default party in the south. But something else quite exciting has been happening, and the clues are hidden in, amongst other places, a Yougov poll for Channel 4 at the end of last year.

Peter Oborne's brilliant analysis of the rise of the political class is a book that should be on every shelf. It reflects the public cynicism for politicians of every hue as self-serving and unrepresentative. As far as government is concerned in the eyes of the public, the parties are interchangeable; central Statists, career politicians.

In answer to the question "The people in charge know best" 62% disagreed and only 8% agreed.

And in answer to the question "How important is it that the media challenges what government does and tells us?" 84% answered important and only 4% answered not important.

And therein lies a new orthodoxy. The political class as a whole are the new government, and the media is the new opposition. Of course no one elects the old media, the MSM, and one could argue this is a fundamentally undemocratic settlement. Except that more and more people now participate in on-line communities, largely communities of interest such as fishing or gardening, where normative small-p political views and values are shaped and honed as the by-product of interaction.

Slow evolution has always been the best way in a stable democracy such as ours, rather than sudden reformation. As the Central State and the Central Parties slowly consume themselves, the conditions are developing where systems of direct democracy that evolve from the bottom rather than are designed from the top down are becoming increasingly feasible.

And if May 1st furthers a fracturing of national politics on geographical lines, all the better. The politics of people and place, rather than the politics of ideas, is the future.

Sunday, 20 April 2008

Powell's prescient analysis

It is salutary to reflect that in the 40 years since Enoch Powell made the speech that has acted as a dog whistle, calling supporters or opponents to one intellectual barricade or another, the debate about immigration in the UK has been stifled. 'Racist' is an insult now every bit as vituperative as 'queer' or 'nonce'. But also in those 40 years the British people have matured beyond a point that Powell would have recognised. Apart from a few bigots, we are not concerned about colour; we know by now that whatever their skin colour, anyone can share the values and integrate into the culture that defines Britishness.

No, what remains of Powell's prescient vision are two issues that unless tackled now still threaten those things that Powell held dear; the scale of immigration, and the formation of ethnic ghettoes in which there is no attempt at integration.

Powell solution applies even now
The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
Labour's 'open door' must be closed. Commonwealth immigration must be radically curtailed. The rights of Commonwealth residents with 'leave to remain' to vote in national elections must be withdrawn.

And for the second problem, the festering ghettoes created by Labour and nourished with a naive and myopic devotion to 'multiculturalism', which is nothing but apartheid in a pretty frock, Powell again leads us to the answer
The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
Rowan Williams please take note; there is not only no room for Sharia in Britain, there is no room for granting to immigrants any privileges founded on their differences. You must not remove the incentives, the drive, to integration by making it too comfortable to be different. Powell returned to this theme:
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly.
And here Powell's prescience was at its best. The dangers of multiculturalism were clear to him even then, 40 years ago. His was a plea to shared values and cultural congruence, and a condemnation of separate development. Millions of us make the same plea today.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding
The BBC reported three days ago "Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested. Of the 1,000 people asked, 60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave. But the proportion of people describing themselves as "racially prejudiced" was down to 20%, compared with 24% in 2005 ...... almost two in three feared tension was certain or likely to lead to violence, although it is not clear whether people are imagining full-blown street riots or minor scuffles."

Or as Powell almost said
Bella, horrida bella, Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine