To briefly summarize the second hour long
televised treat, Nick Clegg’s position in respect of EU membership and attitude
towards Nigel Farage was twofold. Firstly, in economic terms we could not afford
to give it up because we, the British public, had to consider Britain’s place
in the modern world. Leaving the EU would result in a major loss of employment
at home and a serious loss of trade. The major argument for retaining
membership was therefore economic and those who opposed it like Farage and UKIP
were plain little Englanders. Secondly, Clegg repeatedly castigated Farage for
being supportive of Russia’s President Putin with respect to recent events in
the Ukraine and likewise in Syria. With this he hoped to make serious political
capital in the current political background of accusation by America and the EU
of Russian’s annexation of the Crimea. This repeated attempt to smear his
opponent came across as singularly distasteful.
Early on in the debate Clegg tried to
position Farage as someone who was economically small minded and provincial
whereas he, as Deputy Prime Minister in a Coalition Government, was a political
leader with a modern world view. Someone who sought sensible immigration
control which he maintained was possible contrary to the demands of UKIP which
were both impractical and lacking in economic sense. Crucially however, when
required to answer a question about the British people being given the
opportunity to have a referendum on
whether to stay in Europe or leave he prevaricated. His overriding concern he
stated was economic, his view being that a Referendum might jeopardize the economic
prospects of the British people which would be unwise while the country was
still on the road to economic recovery. With this he clearly ruled out any Lib-Dem
support for David Cameron’s intention to have a Referendum on staying or
leaving if the Tories won the General Election of 2015.
NO SUPPORT FROM THE LIB-DEMS FOR ANY REFERENDUM WHILE
BRITAIN WAS STILL ON THE ROAD TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY!
In this he was clear. As to when he and his
Lib-Dems judged that recovery to have taken place he couldn’t say and quite
frankly you didn’t need to be a political sharpie to realise that his reply was
an only too typical piece of Lib-Dem opportunism so very similar to their
election manifesto promises, all of which, despite their endless rhetoric about
the wonders they’d achieved, were dropped like hot potatoes once they came into
Government.
Nonetheless this was a fair presentation of
him strutting the Liberal Democrat stuff. Full of grandiose assurances and promises
with smears hurled in for good measure. Tactics all very typical of the
political class, Farage retorted when he was given the chance. In the first
half of the debate Clegg worked hard to monopolize the talking. In the second,
Farage came back the stronger, particularly when the subject turned to
immigration, substantial future increases of which, he pointed out, were
inexorably tied to Britain’s continued EU membership. Clegg’s responses to this
came across as weak and unconvincing. Immigration was good for the country he
repeatedly maintained, along with throwing in pro-Putin smears hoping they’d
stick and cause consternation. This was a cheap political trick which clearly
failed. In recent weeks Farage has stated that the EU had “blood on its hands,”
in respect of the involvement of its senior officials in the recent takeover of
the Ukrainian Government while also praising Putin’s common sense attitude to
the crisis in Syria. This, Clegg maintained, showed his support for Putin’s
invasion of the Ukraine and annexation of the Crimea along with supporting the regime of
Assad in Syria.
Clegg’s remarks are indeed interesting and
require some consideration. Clearly, he and his Party supported the takeover of
the previously democratically elected Government of the Ukraine by armed gangs
in Kiev led by Nazi-supporting thugs from the Right Sector and Svoboda
political groupings. The Nazi political allegiance of both these
ultra-nationalist groups is unmistakable and without contention as are the
anti-Semitic activities of both in recent times with Jews being attacked on the
streets of Western Ukrainian cities and synagogues attacked and vandalized. It
is therefore hard to understand on what basis Clegg would choose to attack
Nigel Farage for condemning support given by EU leaders to these far right,
pro-Nazi political groupings by saying that they had “blood on their hands.”
However, given the remorseless anti-Putin fervor in the Western media, his
linking Farage with support for Putin was a pretty cheap shot. Of course he
said nothing about the entirely democratically conducted Referendum in the
Crimea in which the people there were given an open choice of their sovereignty
but simply followed the EU and American line of Russian invasion with which he
challenged Farage! Did he support it or not?
It may be a fair to ask such a question,
but not when coming from a position of entirely failing to condemn the EU’s
support for the Nazi inspired takeover of Kiev! A situation of the EU indeed
having blood on its hands. I mean, it sounds like you supported the Ukrainian
Nazis yourself Mr Clegg because I didn’t hear you say anything against them!
With all of this, Clegg came across as part
of the established highly conservative political class with a concern for
business, labour regulation, Euro-bureaucracy and undemocratic hard right
political activism. There was above all no sign of any liberalism, worker’s
rights, minimum wage guarantees, labour relations or anything at all that could
be construed in any way as fair minded or democratic. How far these people have
shifted even from the bullshit rhetoric of what they once were five years ago
is remarkable, but then you only needed to get a smell of their verbal garbage
and promises time back to know that they were really only political opportunists.
In an entirely opposite sense Farage came across in an entirely forthright and
genuine sense of being concerned about working people’s rights, economic
justice for Britain’s poor along with a wide range of concern for open and
honest democratic government. You had a very clear sense that the man was
entirely forthright, earnest and truthful. With Farage you got meat and two
veg. It was plain on the plate. With Clegg you got a Cornish Pasty and you just
didn’t know what was in it. Newspaper polls conducted the following day
confirmed this to be so. The viewing public gave its support to Farage two to
one. With this the Cornish pasty analogy holds.
After all, the electorate took a serious
bite on the Lib-Dems at the last General Election, The pasty they were told was
full of steak meat, potato and swede. Instead it turned out to be a kind of
meat sludge. Made you feel that you’d been had. Liberal Democrat Cornish Pasty
promises? No thanks. Not after the first lot!
GHOULS
ARE US
In the last week we’ve had the sight of
William Hague appearing alongside Angelina Jolie, film star and United Nations
emissary, in Bosnia in support of a women’s campaign there against rape and
otherwise sponsoring feminine issues. Most deeply memorable of all was the
sight of the British Foreign Secretary and the look on his face. Not for many
years have I seen so solemn an expression so profoundly artificial. A look of
sincerity so utterly contrived. It was an amazingly grisly masterpiece of deep
felt concern against awfulness. There was Hague, in all the wonderful depth of
his caring-sharing compassion. In all his humanity sharing the televised stage
with so called women’s rights icon, Jolie! The two taking a stand against
violation.
Well regarding William Hague, in order to
cut through the crap of the expression presented, all you simply needed to know
that he’s never had the fundamental intelligence or depth of human warmth to
really be able to care sincerely or deeply about anything. These things are not
organic or natural in him. They’re a manufactured condition. Something created
and put together out of necessity when the time for a political show arises. Oh
he might care about things alright only he doesn’t quite understand WHY he
cares. That’s because he was always an ambitious Tory-boy spending much of his
life to date climbing the greasy pole of British political life to high office.
The fundamental character of morality and ethics is something that had to be
learned. Not something that was felt deep from the heart.
Poor William, putting on a face of sincere,
heartfelt concern for those poor women in Bosnia when not so long back you were
all hot for the NATO civilian mass bombing of Serbia. You were marvellous to
catch glimpses of on television, watching you doing your bit for humanity no
less with that slimy heartfelt expression of yours. What an opportunity to show
yourself to the British public for the caring human being you are. Supporting
your lovely leader Margaret Thatcher not so long back when she took away milk from
so many schoolchildren. And now you alongside the sombre caring Angelina Jolie
doing your bit. It’s hard work Billy Hague, being caring, but you don’t have to
wear the face all the time. But then, when you occasionally smile, dear chap,
you’ll always know that you somehow look like an LED backlit full moon!
However for the superbly artificially
constructed caring face you maintained in Bosnia you are awarded the honor of
APRIL GHOUL.
Second candidate up for nomination is
Culture Secretary Maria Miller, recently up for investigation for a forty
thousand plus dodgy expenses claim by the Parliamentary expenses watchdog on
the back of a complaint by a Labour MP. Most of the money however was okayed by
these worthy gentlemen except for some five and half grand which was deemed quite E/N (that’s Extra Naughty to plebs like
me and you) with the demand that the sum be repaid with the requirement that
she publically apologize in the House of Commons for saucy financial conduct
which she’d otherwise thought might go unnoticed. Mme Miller seemed unhappy
with this and any suggestion that she’d done any half inching but nonetheless
graciously returned the sum demanded as well as making the apology required.
publically in the House of Commons for her saucy financial conduct that she’d
otherwise thought might go unnoticed.
Alas it was but never mind! A brief 32
second statement to half empty benches with no sign of groveling was all that
it took. Nothing in any way resembling contrition! If she’d been caught with
her knickers off it was nothing that serious because she had the support of
David Cameron himself who clearly thought that altogether too much was being made
of a genuine mistake! She was his Culture Secretary after all and a cultured
lady at that who’d never do a naughty thing for forty grand knowingly, and
furthermore it just wasn’t right for Labour MPs to go on and on about it.
To my mind however the real point is not
that she made an excessive claim and was caught doing so or even the fact that
she was forced to apologize. It’s that she submitted something wonky in the first
place believing it to be quite okay, otherwise she’d have taken advice
beforehand from the Committee dealing with such matters. In short she had no
second thoughts. And therein lies the problem of what some MPs think is okay and
gets passed as such by worthy gentlemen who actually don’t look too hard and
what actually isn’t and gets sussed by hard-nosed enquiries.
Maria Miller has appeared on televised news
recently, her face alternatively a delicious mixture of smiles and deep scowls
and quite frankly very little contrition about her. Well that’s okay. She feels
genuinely aggrieved! What’s not okay though is for a Parliamentary aide of hers
to phone the editor of the Daily Telegraph in respect of the story the paper
proposed running about her bosses expenses and mention the Leveson Enquiry
which dealt with the propriety of newspaper conduct. The call and mention of
Leveson to the editor was viewed by him as threatening, particularly with
Miller as Culture Secretary being responsible for implementing the
recommendations of the judge’s report! Alas, this piece of silliness re-opened what
was a cut with a plaster on it into something potentially septic and nasty. And
all because the lady took it altogether too seriously!
You got caught for the £5,800 Maria, were
made to look dishonest, had to pay it back and apologize. Don’t you understand
my dear that in terms of modern British political hanky-panky it’s all rather
trivial! Five and a half grand for God’s sake when you were cleared for most of
the rest. I mean, you’re right at the top end of British political life my dear.
Don’t tell me you thought you could ever get that far and still be a virgin?
And because in that sense you just may be somewhat naïve, I am NOT going to award you the title of APRIL GHOUL because as the good David Cameron knows, it’s all just a smacked bottom offence. Nothing in any way Saudi Arabian. Sorry, you’ll have to try much harder if you want to be an April Ghoul!
However, for Nick Clegg claiming the high
moral ground over Nigel Farage with support for the EU and its conduct in the
Ukraine while smearing the UKIP leader for association with Putin and the
Referendum in the Crimea I am pleased to award him the honor of APRIL GHOUL for
distinguished services to political opportunism and lying.
My final award of APRIL GHOUL goes to
Americas ‘Walking Cadaver’ Secretary of State John Kerry, discovered by
President Obama some months ago languishing in the Democrat Party political
dustbin, given a spruce up with grey hair tonic and rolled out onto the world
stage to threaten just about anybody, except of course his best English
buddies. If you want to know why he deserves the award so well may I suggest
that you just take a look at him. Sorry John, that’s what you get for still
wanting to be someone important after fifty years!
No comments:
Post a Comment