David Cameron

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 07, 2005, 10:19 AM | #

There’s no difference between that statement (in the link) and what the left stands for except the left comes right out and says it forthrightly while that dithers and beats around the bush.  It’s nothing but dithering leftism, is what it is.  After a betrayal like this I fail so see why any British Tory in his right mind would hesitate for so much as one nanosecond to switch his allegiance to the BNP.
______
 
—”

that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell
—Moratorium-plus-

!
—Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!
—The

:  the gift that keeps on giving!
—What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 11:03 AM | #

It very much depends which way Cameron’s guns point.  Howard’s were universally trained on the right of his own party rather than on Labour. If Cameron surrounds himself with those more Conservative than he, and trains his guns on Labour, he may be a good thing.  There’s 25% of the electorate to be picked off from the LibDem vote, after all.  “You were the future once” in today’s PM Question Time to Blair was a good line, and may resonate. It is not INEVITABLE that a centrist will be a Quisling, and this time there wasn’t a reliably sound candidate available since Hague (only fairly sound, anyway) and IDS weren’t standing.  Davis would sell his mother for a 3 point swing in an opinion poll, so a principle would certainly be no problem.

As I said, the Shadow cabinet tomorrow will tell us much.  To my list of 6 (4 yes, 2 no) add Rifkind as a no and make it marks out of 7. 

The BNP might theoretically be better (though they DESPERATELY need me to give them an economic policy—do you know their brass, GW?) but a 15%-20% BNP vote that’s not expandable beyond that and lets Labour back makes things worse, not better.  It is also however possible that electing Cameron would also make matters worse not better; as I said, the jury’s still out.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 07, 2005, 12:29 PM | #

Martin,

No, I’ve no acquaintances among the BNP people.  I’ve heard Jonathan Bowden speak, and he is a most intelligent and interesting man.  The guys who write on their really very professional website seem pretty good, too.  There are still to many shades of “Coker” from John Windham’s Day of the Triffids.  But they are getting more disciplined and classier as the PC legislation bites into their lazier instincts.

Electorally, in so much as they focus on the issue of “British” Muslim’s - hey, we should call it the MQ, would that get around your principled resistance to “Islamofascism”? - they are a Party of the English northern working class.  Of course, they will say that their support is increasingly national and across all classes, and I’m sure that is so.  But the core effort is still directed at one-time or existing Labour voters in northern urban constituencies.  So straight away sensible economics are problematic.  How do they present dry, functioning, freedom- and deregulation-based proposals to a traditional Labour audience?  They would attract and repel in equal measure.

Thus far they have funked the issue by dredging up Hillaire Belloc’s distributist fantasies.  That’s a sad mistake.  It means they have to sweep international capitalism as well as the liberal elite from these shores.  They need to get real on the former to have a chance of the latter.  At the moment, though, they seem think that Peak Oil will accomplish the victory over international capital for them.

Then there is the other problem, which you have indicated, in the shape of the 20-25% vote ceiling that seems to afflict third parties.  This is especially telling in an FPTP system.  The only way to make a thorough breakthrough into and beyond the 30% mark is to leech away voters from both the major Parties.  That’s much tougher to do in the Tory shires, not merely because of the galloping gentility and the absence of Muslims next-door but because the Tories can always move rightwards to cover themselves.  Beyond soundbites and false promises, Labour can’t do that.

I still tend to view the BNP as a pressure group.  They have not yet reached the point, I think, where they are instilling fear in Tory and Labour hearts.  They are not really an effective pressure group yet.  But if, say, they can double support in the next election, that will make the loser of the big two think extremely hard.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 12:40 PM | #

I’ve come around to the point where I don’t really care who wins an election, so long as they are against the New World Order (of course, that means you must be against the entire New World Order - that is, nothing but total and complete secession), they deserve support.

“Partisan politics”, i.e. Republican v Democrat, Labour v Conservative, Hulk Hogan v Lex Luger, is so utterly meaningless and irrelevant, I can never understand how it excites people. Who freakin’ cares if the Tories want to reduce taxes by 0.5%, and why on earth do we allow the mass media to dupe us into thinking that the real debate should be over whether or not we spend ten million extra on disability services???

From now on, we must cease to pay any attention whenever the mainstream media tries to drag us into these utter trivialities, which are really only there to channel witless people into the New World Order control grid. Forget it!

The BNP oppose the New World Order and its attendent miseries - mass immigration, multiculturalism, thought police, perpetual war - and even if they are clueless on economics, they deserve support for being solid on the fundamentals.

The only thing left to do is destroy the Conservative Party…

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 12:59 PM | #

My God! He is a vacant lot, isn’t he? Get a load of this:

“We believe in national sovereignty. But not in isolation and xenophobia…Britain has always done best when she engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world.”

Blah blah blah - utterly meaningless.

“We believe in lower taxes. But not in fostering greed or favouring the rich.”

Vacuous. Does he think we’re idiots?

And this from an article in the Telegraph:

“Then a Labour supporter accosts him about immigration, saying: “Send them all back and I’ll vote for you.” Cameron listens for five minutes before politely explaining that he is not in favour of repatriation.

When another man asks him whether political correctness is ruining Britain, the true-blue Chippenham audience lets out a cheer. But that doesn’t deter Cameron from giving a fierce riposte. “In some ways political correctness is a good thing,” he says. “I don’t want my disabled son to be called a spastic, I don’t want my black neighbours to be called negroes or a gay friend to be labelled queer. The Conservative Party is the polite party, the decent party - we want to help people.” “

I won’t even both spending more time on this Cameron fellow - I’ve got too much respect for you people. Forget I said anything of him. Waste of time. The man’s a nothing. A zero. An absolute zilch. And he’s going to lose.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 01:02 PM | #

“both” - I meant “bother”.

Anyhow. Cameron is probably a little better than Bush who, as Fred has pointed out, is an insect.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 01:15 PM | #

We don’t yet know whether Cameron is better than Bush, but at least the heredity’s not strongly against him, as it was against Bush.  Anyway, Blair/Brown are quite clearly worse than Clinton, though I grant you Gore was pretty alarming.

I agree much of the Cameron PR is revolting, but if (i) his Europe, public spending/tax, health/education and immigration policies are significantly better than those of the Blair/Brown combo, (ii) the BNP is not yet a credible force and (iii) he doesn’t do wantonly destructive things like force Howard Flight out of Parliament, he should be supported. Bush’s rhetoric is well to the right of his actions in government—he talks right, to keep the base happy, and governs left.  Cameron may or may not be the opposite; that’s the $1 million question.

His attempts today to shove Blair right on education, against the opposition of Blair’s party, are insignificant strategically but may be mildly helpful to the country, for example.

Posted by Calvin on December 07, 2005, 01:26 PM | #

David Cameron analysed here;

http://boreasrising.blogspot.com/

“Look Ma It’s Twins”

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 01:36 PM | #

Martin - Cameron is an out-and-out cultural marxist. End of discussion.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 02:17 PM | #

He does indeed appear to be a cultural Marxist, but I am less concerned about cultural Marxism than I am about political Marxism or economic Marxism. Jim Callaghan, for example, was largely an economic Marxist but certainly not a cultural one.  Philip Snowden was a political Marxist but neither an economic nor a cultural one. The jury is still out (i) on what cameron realy is and (ii) on what if anything one ought to do about it.

Posted by Phil on December 07, 2005, 02:20 PM | #

I haven’t the time to blow off more steam on Cameron but Steve here has hit the nail on the head.

Cameron is a “me too” “Conservative”. he is essentially Labour “light”. He wants to offer everything New Labour offers us - with a younger face and a cheery smile. Screw him. He is part of the problem.

Five years ago, a close friend of mine said that the Tories were finished and that the only party left for the English was the BNP. I scoffed at him - ther are vulgar (Tynadall was still fresh on the mind), they are coarse, they are irresponsible, stupid, etc etc. I don’t think I was wrong then. But they have clearly understood that if they are going to make an impact they are going to have ti behave like pros. And Griffin has done a very good job of getting that message across.

It is true that they may never cross 15 to 20 percent of the vote. But can you imagine the fit the establishment would go into if the BNP win a fifth of the Vote? My God. It doesn’t even bear thinking about.

I have had it with tweedledee and tweedledum. If I wanted Labour policies, Id vote for the real thing. Why bother with clones?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 02:44 PM | #

Phil, I semi-agree with you, but to attract me the BNP needs an economic policy that makes some kind of sense.  Currently they seem to have picked up their economic policy from Oswald Mosley’s leftovers, and it shows. It’s nonsense to say a proper economic policy repels the proles; the proles could care less about economics but they want something that gives them personally a good and rising standard of living, which current BNP economics manifestly wouldn’t.

We now have early scores on the “Marks out of 7” test for the Shadow Cabinet (BBC website).  Hague, Davis and Fox in, plus 3 (I should have added Redwood—keep an eye out) Rifkind out, plus 1. IDS seems to have a silly help-the-poor brief; see if he’s in the shadow cabinet or not.  No word yet on Portillo or Clarke. If we avoid Portillo and Clarke, then even without IDS that team’s not a clone of Labour.

I agree the upside on a Cameron Tory party is a modestly improved government that can win elections, but if endless Labour is the alternative I’ll hold my nose and take it.  Building the BNP to become a credible long term alternative is worth doing though, I agree, and may be where MR readers can have more impact and be more comfortable.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 03:00 PM | #

It looks like it’s BNP or bust, I’m afraid. Blair and Cameron are a couple of WWF wrestlers who like to put on a show for the punters. We should not pretend that this is anything other than a stage-managed event. There is no difference worth speaking of.

We have to think to ourselves - can Western civilisation more withstand political marxism than cultural marxism? I think the answer is yes. Poland had four decades of political marxism, and they are doing fine. We have had four decades of cultural marxism, and are facing oblivion.

If a party is offering a complete reversal of the last (let’s be conservative) four decades of history, they are worth supporting even if they might raise tariffs by 10%.

Posted by WJG on December 07, 2005, 03:05 PM | #

I agree completely with Steve that this Cameron is a complete waste: a sickening, PC drone.  Left/Right, Labor/Tory, who gives a darn about that fog anymore.  Far from considering him preferable to Blair I think he is worse because he is more deceptive.  As Phil says, “Labour light”.  In the minds of activists and intellectuals the Tories may have no credibility, but if the “silent majority” portion of the British public is anything like that in America, they grant a level of respect to what is considered the ‘conservative’ political party.  Therefore, when the conservative political party has abandoned all traditional principles, which originally distinguished them, in favor of pragmatism (i.e. liberal lite) they become worse than the naked leftists.

If the water quickly turns to boiling the masses may react.  The slow burn is what is doing us in.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 03:14 PM | #

Steve the British economy cannot survive by recreating the Cowley Motor works and manufacturing 1950s Morris Oxfords, complete with the half timbering.  Even India in the end couldn’t make that work.  Britain is the most economically committed to international trade of all major economies, and economic policy has to reflect this.  Mosley’s socialism and protectionism didn’t make much sense in the 1930s; it makes none at all now, when Britain has almost no manufacturing sector left. There is no point whatever in instituting the perfect WN utopia if the result is economic collapse.

If the ex-bankers on MR currently in Britain want to do something useful they should network their way into the top policy councils of the BNP and give them some free and much needed advice.  Until somebody does, it will all be for nothing.

Posted by AD on December 07, 2005, 03:46 PM | #

Martin,

Lack of decent economic policy is the achilles heal of almost all nationalist parties. Voters fear that in the process of eliminating multiculturalism, they will also lose the ability to make a living.

You seem to have pretty good credentials, why don’t you contact them?

Posted by Calvin on December 07, 2005, 03:55 PM | #

The BNP are in a catch 22 situation. Genuine intellectuals will not invest their reputations in an organisation with only limited voter appeal, and a lack of intellectual vigour limits their attractiveness to a large sector of the electorate.

Perhaps the people who could provide a coherent economic programme are all sitting on the margins waiting for someone else to kill the hydra of liberal neo-Marxism before they pledge allegiance.

Respectable intellectuals have to realise that if theywant the BNP to become intellectualy respectable THEY have to become active on its behalf, either that or get your Penguin Classic copy of the Koran and brace yourself for a steep learning curve. 

Salvation from cultural obliteration is not going to come from the BBC, union gauleiters or the professoriat or Conservative-lite.

Any party despised in equal measure by the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the CRE and the BBC must be doing something right.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 04:13 PM | #

“...get your Penguin Classic copy of the Koran and brace yourself for a steep learning curve…”

I still cannot get my head around the fact that extreme secular zealotry is the conscious, willing, handmaiden to theocratic absolutism. It’s so crazy, I don’t know what to say anymore.

Oh Marx! What have you done?

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 04:24 PM | #

Martin, in my heart of hearts I do agree with you (and as an economic libertarian I’d be the first wanting to get the likes of the BNP in line) that the BNP will have to get a clue before it can seriously trouble the Establishment.

That said, “Act Locally, Fight Globalism!” I will start from the assumption that anyone who opposes the New World Order will be a temporary ally. There must be a meeting of minds. We can sort out the other details later.

First it must be established that the New World Order has to go, and there cannot be any movement from that (like I say, I don’t care if you are Neil Clark or Hans-Herman Hoppe in the initial phases, but at some point there will be argument).

My ideal political system in 20 years time would begin with a consensus against mass immigration, world government, etc. That will be bipartisan, and no dissent will exist. None. Anybody who tried to advocate either would basically be shunned, abused, ridiculed and excluded from polite company.

From there, the two “parties” will comprise an Old Left (unionists, nation-builders, socialists, etc) and a New Right (free trade, private enterprise, limited government) fighting over very real material issues. I will, of course, side with the latter.

But for the first time in 60 years, abolishing our identity simply won’t be a respectable position - anybody who even tried to raise it would be considered some kind of freak or mental asylum escapee, or even worse. The moral equivalent of a paedophile.

Posted by Mark Richardson on December 07, 2005, 04:53 PM | #

Steve, your new right will need to talk explicitly about upholding a traditional national identity and not leave it as an assumption, while promoting free trade and smaller government.

There are always going to be Westerners with such a radically individualistic mentality that they will want to put the “sovereign individual” ahead of any communal identity. These people need to be answered within the formal presentation of political credos.

Posted by Calvin on December 07, 2005, 05:32 PM | #

“I still cannot get my head around the fact that extreme secular zealotry is the conscious, willing, handmaiden to theocratic absolutism. It’s so crazy, I don’t know what to say anymore”

Socialism’s ideological objections to religious belief systems were invented to degrade the appeal of a powerful rival for the hearts and minds of European people. The socialists managed to hasten the demise of religion without significantly broadening their own appeal. Since socialists failed to attain the support of the working-classes they have decided to attempt to rise to power on a wave of gratitude from non-European immigrants. To this end they have to take whoever turns up. Tough times make monkeys eat red chillies.

Posted by anonymous on December 07, 2005, 06:36 PM | #

The electoral appeal of a political party obviously concerns public perception. Public perception is something that is in no small part bought and paid for. The biggest obstacle to the growth of Nationalist movements is a lack of real money.

These movements have rarely had the financial backing of wealthy champions found behind the nascent stages of more successful political organizations. They have the intellectual resources but success is not only a matter of policy.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 07, 2005, 07:01 PM | #

Mark - the only real bulwark against globalism is national identity, and this has to be defined ethno-culturally - so you have no quarrel there.

Posted by AD on December 07, 2005, 08:07 PM | #

My ideal political system in 20 years time would begin with a consensus against mass immigration, world government, etc. That will be bipartisan, and no dissent will exist. None. Anybody who tried to advocate either would basically be shunned, abused, ridiculed and excluded from polite company.

From there, the two “parties” will comprise an Old Left (unionists, nation-builders, socialists, etc) and a New Right (free trade, private enterprise, limited government) fighting over very real material issues. I will, of course, side with the latter. -S.E

If you eliminate the modern(disgusting) ideals of internationalism, egalitarianism, mass immigration etc, i think you’ll find there won’t be many ‘socialists’ or ‘capitalists’ left.

Who knows, maybe we can go back to the days where both community and freedom mattered at the same time…a millenia old concept that does not compute with those ideological idiots who define themselves as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

The fact is most people don’t define themselves that way. Most people love their families and freedom, want community, have ambition and want to retain identity. Natural, normal, instinctive stuff. When someone comes out and says the people can have all of those things, the voices of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ combine to vilify them….fearing(rightly) that if you take their strawman arguments away, they won’t exist anymore.

Listen to the news on any given night, 90% of it is trumped up manufactured junk that most people don’t care about, but the ‘left’ and ‘right’ do so they can ‘argue’.....like Vivian Alvarez or some lawyer ‘outraged’ at the treatment of refugees, a government ‘scandal’ or the latest AC Nielsen poll on the ‘cross city tunnel’. All of it translates to the average person as blah honk thop bleh spit yawn waa bleh.

Posted by Phil on December 07, 2005, 08:09 PM | #

Martin,

I wouldn’t worry about BNP economics too much because they are still years away from winning a general election. The realistic aim now would be to get their vote up to 15 percent, at which point they cannot be ignored as lunatic extremists and their concerns begin to scare the daylights out of the comfortable establishment types.

In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party isn’t part of the Government. It doesn’t have to be. It is a powerful faction that has changed the tone of the debate almost completely.

The argument over economics is superfluous at this moment. The Tories won’t do anything different from what Labour has done. And what has Labour done? They have silently increased the size of the Government to proportions unthinkable in 1997. As Simon Heffer calls it, Labour has created a “client state”. This has been Labour’s real achievement. And it has been achieved by taking the taxpayer for a royal ride. Government spending as percentage of GDP has gone through the roof? And what is the Tories’ answer to this? To keep spending money!

Even if Economics was my sole concern, I could not convince myself to vote Tory. Forget it, the Tories are useless. Their new pledge is to become the “Nice Party” and we know where niceness leads – more multiculturalism, more asylum seekers, more taxpayer money down African ratholes.

I don’t want any part of it. The BNP is the way to go. Its time to shake things up. We have put up with this rubbish for far too long.

Posted by Phil on December 07, 2005, 08:11 PM | #

Here is Simon Heffer on New Labour spending. The Tories want to keep all of it and expand it (probably not as fast as Nu Labour).

The Tories are a waste of time.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 07, 2005, 09:40 PM | #

Yes, but we don’t yet know what Cameron’s policies on spending will be. A party to the right of the Tories that forces them to tack rightward rather than towards the centre (and punishes them electorally when, as in the 2004 Euro election, they fail to do so) is what’s now needed.  The BNP can be this, but it needs to sort out its economic policy; without doing so it will fail to attract the middle classes looking for a new haven from Tory Notting-Hillness.

Posted by ben tillman on December 07, 2005, 11:24 PM | #

If you eliminate the modern(disgusting) ideals of internationalism, egalitarianism, mass immigration etc, i think you’ll find there won’t be many ‘socialists’ or ‘capitalists’ left.

Who knows, maybe we can go back to the days where both community and freedom mattered at the same time…a millenia old concept that does not compute with those ideological idiots who define themselves as ‘left’ or ‘right’.

Bravo, AD.  Bravo.  You have got it exactly right.  Have you read D.S. Wilson (“Unto Others” “Darwin’s Cathedral”), Matt Ridley (Origins of Virtue), and Chris Boehm (Hierarchy in the Forest)?  They may help you to contextualize your argument.  Please fe; free to email in this regard.

Posted by Steve Edwards on December 08, 2005, 04:00 AM | #

AD - I completely respect your point of view, but it must be granted that there are always going to be trade unionists of some kind, and that these people are going to defend their interests (just as I am going to defend the interests of property owners).

Thus there will still be a demarcation of political opinion due to these broad conflicts. I agree that Left and Right will be pointless anyways - it’s US versus THEM. You are either for the New World Order, or against it.

Posted by john on December 08, 2005, 06:53 PM | #

Martin said “but to attract me the BNP needs an economic policy that makes some kind of sense”
I agree with you Martin. For me there’s to much talk about micro-managing of the economy. If the party could extend it’s policy of reduced state interference in the private realm to include bussiness, then it would begin to appeal to bussiness men.

Posted by kelly on April 24, 2006, 02:10 PM | #

Nokia n92…...........$200usd
Nokia N70…...........$140usd
Nokia N71…...........$145USD
Nokia N90…...........$160usd
Nokia N91…...........$180usd
Nokia n80…...........$170usd
Nokia 6682…..........$150usd
Nokia 6830…..........$130usd
Nokia 7700…..........$110usd
Nokia 1110…..........$100usd
Nokia 1600…..........$115usd
Nokia 2125…..........$125usd
Nokia 2255…..........$100usd
Nokia 3128…..........$100usd
Nokia 5140i….........$125usd
Nokia 6101…..........$115usd
Nokia 6030…..........$100usd
Nokia 6060…..........$110usd
Nokia 7280…..........$127usd
Nokia 7600…..........$90usd
Nokia 7610…..........$100usd
Nokia 7710…..........$110usd
Nokia 810…...........$125usd
Nokia 8800…..........$120usd
Nokia 8910i….........$120usd
Nokia 9210i….........$120usd
Nokia 9300…..........$125usd
Nokia 9500…..........$140usd
Nokia N Gage QD….....$128usd
O2 3G Datacard…......$127usd
Orange Blackberry…...$130usd
Orange 3G Datacard…..$110usd
Orange SPV C500….....$110usd
Orange SPV M2000…....$114usd
Panasonic X60….......$129usd
Panasonic X70….......$134usd
Panasonic X300…......$124usd
Panasonic X700…......$152usd
Samsung D410…........$145usd
Samsung D500…........$140usd
Samsung d600…........$140usd
Samsung E310…........$120usd
Samsung E330…........$130usd
Samsung E600…........$128usd
Samsung E630…........$123usd
Samsung E700…........$125usd
LG 8150….............$135usd
LG 8150….............$125usd
LG G8000…............$134usd
MDA4…................$130usd
Mitac MIO 8930…......$110usd
Motorola A600….......$130usd
Motorola A630….......$120usd
Motorola A760….......$130usd
Motorola A780….......$130usd
Motorola A840….......$142usd
Motorola E1….........$134usd
Motorola MPX…........$125usd
Motorola MPX100….....$120usd
Motorola MPX300.,......$115usd
Sony Ericsson J210i….$120usd
Sony Ericsson J300i….$122usd
Sony Ericsson K300i….$123usd
Sony Ericsson K508i….$132usd
Sony Ericsson K600i….$128usd
Sony Ericsson K608i….$127usd
Sony Ericsson S600i….$134usd
Sony! Ericsson V600i…$132usd
Sony Ericsson V800i….$130usd
sony Ericsson w600i….$118usd
Nextel i930….........$130usd
Nextel i870….........$120usd
Nextel i860….........$110usd
treo 600…............$100usd
Treo 650…............$100usd
feel free to contact us by E-mail:smartmobilephone01@yahoo.com