November 29, 2009

I will no longer post on here. My blog is now located at

The EU debate

November 11, 2009

A debate I’ve been having addresses many of the common fallacies of pro-EU thinking and some of the myths they adopt, too.

Take a look. I start up from post no.30

New home

November 7, 2009

I’m now keeping all my blogs on blogger.

TAP is now at though I’ll keep posting here, too.

November 2, 2009

First, a very good point made by Peter Hitchens about a crucial news point that was largely ignored.

Second, a good summary of the BNP on Question Time farce by the excellent Pub Philosopher, though he neglects to mention the ridiculous set up arranged by Dimbleby that meant questions being fired at Griffin in salvos, and Griffin being denied a chance to answer them. Ridiculous treatment, whatever you may think of the man himself.

Finally, I reproduce here a message from Ashley Mote (visit his site to get these messages)

The Islamization of Europe

Geert Wilders*(footnote 1) is a member of the Netherlands parliament and chairman of the Dutch Party for Freedom. He was speaking at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York on 25 September 2008. His speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute. He gave it the title America The Last Man Standing

This is what he said:

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well.

It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam [Netherlands], Marseille [France], Malmo in Sweden [and Leicester in the UK]. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear ‘whore, whore’. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia [Islamic law]* (footnote 2) courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run from the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.* (footnote 3).

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks.

The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate [world-wide official leader of Islam]. Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs. I call the perpetrators ‘settlers’. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our society, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time.

Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no-one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a God, and a hereafter, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’.

Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism. These are both totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in Israel and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz; second because it is a democracy; and third because Israel is our first line of defence.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad [holy war]. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream! , unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favour of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values.

On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.

So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.

Yet there is a danger greater than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and&nb! sp;Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians.

We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

*Footnotes by Ashley Mote

1. The British Home Secretary exceeded her powers last year when she banned Mr Wilders from visiting the UK. He had been invited by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, one of two UK Independence Party members in the House of Lords. Jacqui Smith later left Gordon Brown’s government in disgrace. Her original decision was then overturned and Mr Wilders was free to visit the UK which, as a citizen of the EU (like it or not), he had every right to do in the first place.

2. During the 1980s I was frequently in the Middle East, working as a scriptwriter and presenter for a number of multinational companies in the oil business. My task was the explain to newcomers from the US and Europe what they might expect when they first arrived in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States, and the huge cultural jump they would have to make immediately on arrival. Essentially I was providing a list of do’s and don’ts to keep them out of trouble.

What I learned over those years never ceased to shock me. Initially I had little idea how the Islamic states regarded and treated women, the humbug they used to deplore alcohol in public and drink it in private, and their deceitful attitude towards doing business with foreigners, or engaging with them in any way. Trust and respect were never on the agenda. Bribery and corruption were the norm (and where have you heard that before?). The Islamic states wanted Western money and technology, but nothing else.

The concept that religion and state law could be one and the same was totally new to me, especially when their religious beliefs were so primitive. The practical implications were constantly surprising and sometimes truly horrifying.

Many years later I listened in the European Parliament to a group of academics present evidence of the blood-curdling dogma taught routinely to school-children in Iran. We saw their text-books for ourselves. We read how Iranian teenager boys were being encouraged to blow themselves up and take as many infidels (non-Muslims) with them, in exchange for a short cut to paradise and access to 72 vestal virgins. Monstrous rubbish, dangerous and an outrageous denial of life to children who deserved better – much better.

So, directly from my personal experiences, I can vouch for and confirm everything Geert Wilders said in his speech.

3. Geert Wilders did not spell out the alarming and accelerating population swing in favour of Muslim dominance in Western Europe. Let me add a few details now.

Not one of the EU’s 27 member states has an indigenous white Caucasian population reproducing itself at the minimum 2.1 children per couple needed for the population to remain stable into the future. Ireland comes closest at 1.86. The UK is around 1.5. Spain and Italy are around 1.29. Reproduction at these levels means the population halves every 35 years.

Immigrant Muslim families reproduce themselves far more vigorously. Families of five children are commonplace across Western Europe. Colonel Gaddafi of Libya is on the record as saying “50 million Muslims already in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades”. Yet the EU continues to allow millions more to come, and Turkey’s entry will turn the EU into a Muslim-dominated institution.

One leading demographer has forecast that Britain will have a Muslim majority by mid-century, and a Muslim prime minister soon afterwards. In that case, the introduction of sharia law will be inevitable. A thousand years of English common law will disappear almost overnight.

If I had one year in power, I would…..

September 28, 2009

Immediate halt on unchecked immigration. A return to the points system. A task force to return illegal immigrants home.

A referendum EU membership.

A 5% pay cut for all MPS and financial penalties for anyone abusing the expenses system.

A move to change the House of Lords at least 30% elected.

A task force and separate think tank to review and revise economic policy.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Abolition of all wind farms, funding of nuclear power projects.

Massive review of police powers and criminal law, especially juvenile law.

Zero tolerance drugs laws.

Abolition of the HRA.

Restoration of grammar schools.

Abolition of the new runway at Heathrow. Expansion of rail networks.

New citizen powers, similar to the ‘citizens arrest’ that allow members of the public to kick Portsmouth fans and far leftists in the nuts once per 24 hours.

The right’s road to destruction

September 15, 2009

I have a confession to make: I once voted Labour. In my defence I was young, I didn’t really understand politics and I was taken in by Mr Blair’s spin. In the years to come, I slowly realised that Labour was not part of the solution, they were making the problem worse. That was stage one of my awakening.

Step two was the Conservative Party. I guess I should be grateful to Mr Cameron, since his plastic, smug and utterly hypocritical attitude helped me to realise that, yes, the Conservative Party were also part of the problem. Soon after I also realised that no, they were not as bad as Labour: they were worse. Labour are a left wing party implementing left wing policies whilst drifting towards the centre. The Tory party presents itself as conservative and traditional, whilst being the total opposite. They are engaging in deliberate, malicious and active fraud, all to feed their own greed and lust for power.

I thought that would be my final epiphany, and my awakening was complete. I drifted around UKIP, the English Democrats and other parties in the belief that anyone supporting those type of parties was a least on the right side. In a way, I still believe that to be true but there is one more problem we need to come to terms with: we seem fixated on self-destruction.

This problem came to a head with the internal splits in UKIP. The shock-waves of this continue to be felt and I’m sure the resignation of Nigel Farage and the subsequent resignation of the treasurer is related. Farage was not a bad leader, his speeches in the EUP were impressive and he presented a good face to the UKIP party. On a European level, the party continued to grow but on a local level, there has been little or no progress.

Behind the scenes though, it was a badly kept secret that UKIP was plagued with squabbles, pettiness and factionalism. It’s not just them either. Other parties formed and fell apart almost instantly. Many of them fight with similar parties whose members seem desperate to be the ‘only’ party with certain policies or popular support. A quick survey of any right wing internet forum should demonstrate this. Often it’s just a few people creating tension and resentment for everyone else but the damage is there for all to see. Don’t get me wrong, it’s good to argue and debate when it’s done in the right way, but what we seem to be seeing constantly on the right is not debate, but pathetic, childish vendettas between people who really should know better.

Let’s look at the bigger picture: the last twenty years have seen Britain flooded by immigrants it cannot support, the destruction of grammar schools, surrender of our sovereignty to the EU, our police transformed into social workers, increases in violent crime, record amounts of divorce and widespread drug abuse. So what are we doing to deal with it? Apparently, a minority of us seem to think it’s far more important to squabble over a power vacuum that exists only in their own tiny world. It’s sad, it’s selfish and it’s small minded.

I joined Popular Alliance because they had the policies that matched my own ideology remarkably closely. But I will stand by and support UKIP, the English Democrats, Free England, UK First, Veritas and even the UK Libertarian Party when they stand against the three main parties responsible for destroying the UK.

The reality is that we simply don’t have the strength in numbers or resources to do this alone. I’m proud of Popular Alliance for offering to work alongside any other party with similar values and I wish other parities would follow suit. As the old saying goes “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, andwe have too much to lose to waste time squabbling with each other over personal issues.

Right now, I fear that in thirty years time, the United States of Europe will be busy erasing British history from the curriculum of state schools where ALL children are sent to be programmed, criticising other religions or cultures will be a criminal offence, windmills will cover every inch of countryside, high rise towers will be the only permissible form of new housing due to space constraints and all laws will be passed by the marketing manager of the USE.

Meanwhile, on some secret samizdat internet forum, we’ll still be posting insulting messages to each other fighting about which party gave the worst convention speech ten years ago.

No tumbleweed thanks, we’re British

September 10, 2009

I’m not dead. I’m not melancholy. I’m watching with interest as UKIP – from whence Popular Alliance came – seem to fall apart. I have a lot to ponder and a lot to say about the state of Britain and the right wing. We are entering a truly crucial period in political history and conservatives, libertarians and civic nationalists seem utterly hellbent on self-destruction. Watch this space.

Thanks to everyone who has read and/or commented on my blog.

More to come soon.

The argument against conscription

August 6, 2009

The idea of compulsory military service (conscription) is one that is growing in popularity amongst the political right in the UK. It seems to be a nostalgic, almost quixotic way of restoring pride in the nation, installing discipline and bolstering the ranks of those who defend our nation.

Sadly though, all of these sentiments are either wrong or outweighed by drawbacks. Compulsory military service is not beneficial, required or advisable. Here’s why….

1) Lack of resources and finances.

There is nothing less patriotic then sending soldiers to war with insufficent and inefficient equipment. That’s exactly what we have done to our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s an absolute crime, a crime that our government barely even acknowledges, let alone apologisies or seeks to amend for. Why on earth would we want to condemn more of our men to the same risks?

We could argue that a new government would take ore pride in our armed forces, but until they have assessed the state of play and ensured all equipment is both cutting edge and in plentiful supply (at a massive cost) then not only would it be wrong to deploy more soldiers at home or abroad, it would be downright evil.

2) Lack of precedent.

Not since the days of the Plantagenet kings have soldiers been drafted from the peasantry outside wartime. From then on, all military forces have always been composed, in bulk, of volunteers. During that time we have always remained a military power and, until recent times, have always had a sense of identity and duty amongst the masses, at least to a point far stronger than it is now.

3) Teaching the unteachable

I’ve lived or worked in several countries with compulsory service. The idea being that it installs a sense of national pride in the servicemen. The problem with this is that pride cannot be enforced, it must come naturally. Forcing nationalism upon people results only in lip service, fake ceremonies and hidden resentment.

4) Lack of pragmatism

Nations that use compulsory service such as Switzerland use the programme almost as a technical scholarship. Servicemen are simply deployed on standing guard duty within a peaceful city. This has the sideways bonus of keeping young males – the demographic most prone to crime and other problematic behaviour – in order, but what other benefits does it bring? Instead of using compulsory service as a form of training, any UK government would be far more productive in repairing the utter destruction Labour has inflicted on our education system. A return of grammar schools and a real curriculum would be time and money far better spent by our rulers, and in the long run it would reap far greater benefits for, and by, our young men.

This is where I stand. The UK has a great, great Armed Forces network – fulled by great people – that has served us brilliantly for centuries. We must be careful not to damage or weaken it by making quixotic or false sentimental decisions. Compulsory service is not the way to go.

Media bias?

July 30, 2009

In this day and age, a media pundit cold be sat in rural Papa New Guinea and be as up to date on breaking news as a London correspondent. The finer and more subtle events however, can be missed by an exile such as myself. Yet sometimes this can be beneficial in the long run; in the same way that you will notice how a friend has aged if you see him once every ten years, yet would never be able to see such a thing if you take lunch with him each day, the biggest changes in Britain seem to jump out at me when I watch the news or after several months.

Enough waffle: I’m talking about the shocking and unrepentant bias in our mainstream media. I had been warned about it from various sources. I thought I knew what to expect, but when I watched this interview with Gordon Brown I was stunned. Can anyone fail to have noticed that the BBC reporter – supposedly working for our flagship TV station and bound to a strict code of conduct and fairness – was firing a salvo of loaded and prejudiced questions at GB? Watch it again. Notice how each reporter’s statement opens with a Brown/Labour statement followed by a Tory response. It’s never the other way around. This is no accident, it’s a psychological tactic. Notice how the journalist – whose job it is to get information – shoots a shameless set of loaded and sneering personal questions at GB.

“Wouldn’t you say it’s a mea culpa?” , “Wouldn’t you say some of this is your own responsibility?” and so on.

The approach of the reporter and the overall report may be subtle but it is clear: every Labour argument or tactic must be responded to and overruled by the Tories (having the last word) , every defence of Gordon Brown must be followed up by another charge. Open questions and in depth questions must be minimal, as it may allow him to at least try and make himself look good.

This is neither paranoid, important or trivial. This is a fundamental change in the way BBC reporters are dealing with politics and Labour in general. It appears the naysayers are correct. Our media have been influenced so heavily by the Tories that an unspoken consensus has been reached: it’s time for a Tory government. No hat’s not because Brown has been a disaster (though of course he has) it’s not because Cameron et al. are doing so well or appear so ready to take the reins (they don’t) it’s simply that various influences have manipulated the media to take this stance.

This is not uncommon in newspaper circles. One only has to look at the year of Blair’s first election victory for an example of how quickly tabloids will jump ship and completely change tack. But the BBC always seemed to take an admirable, if problematic, stance of neutrality. Now it seems they have become as weak and corruptible as the rest.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no time for GB and Labour, but I believe in a fair and free media and I take pride in what little integrity the BBC has left. I repeat: Brown may have been a disaster, Labour may be a shambles, but to confuse the incompetence of the ruling party with the loaded and manipulative reporting of our flagship news station is unacceptable. If we allow this to happen, it can only lead to an Orwellian media, where not only our vote, but our whole image and understanding of our government will be twisted and manipulated by a few elitist executives and those who choose to wine and dine their workers.


July 28, 2009

This was originally meant to be an extra page on the blog, but I decided it would make the whole layout even more cluttered. So please take a read right here…………….

It’s important to understand the concepts in this blog, to avoid needless repetition and to save some readers from shock. To understand some of the key ideas I express and why they are so incredibly important, we first need to crush some of the nonsense that other political bloggers subscribe to, consciously or not.

1) The Conservative Party is no longer conservative.

Fact: The majority of Conservative Party members are interested in nothing more than gaining power.

This is surely a given. If anyone truly believes the Tories represent any form of tradition, social conservation, reactionism or any other form if reversal from the massive and horrific damage done to our society by Labour than they re uninformed or mistaken.

This should be clear from a look at the Conservatives track record should be damning enough. No resistance to the abolition of grammar schools, no open, honest opposition to immigration and most obvious of all, no organised opposition to the EU! Don’t be fooled by talk of ‘euro-sceptics’. The Conservatives will never have the collective courage to pull us out of the EU. Never!

Many members of the Tories at all levels are aware of this deep own, this is why they stick to empty rhetoric like ‘change’ and personal attacks on Brown and Labour members. It avoids debate of the real issues.

Yes there are some groups such as the Cornerstone Group and the likes of Daniel Hannan who are fighting the tide, in reality they would be better off with Popular Alliance.

2) There is little, if any difference between the ‘big three’ parties anymore.

Just because they play a few games during Prime minister’s Questions does not mean there is any real ideology beyond a lust for power anymore. I can only wonder how much time and effort cold be saved by supporters of the big three if they realised the illusion they play along with when they debate political issues.

All three support unconditional surrender to the EU. All three support the abolition of grammar schools and meritocratic education. All three play along with politically correct approaches to immigration (opposition in any form or however articulated is ‘racist’) education (they all support comprehensives and the universal dumbing own of examinations) , multiculturalism (all of them are terrified to speak out against it to the slightest degree) and so on. You name a major manifesto issue, you will be hard pressed to find a difference in the big three.

The only issues that provoke any real split are issues more to do with personal values and morality than ideology, such as the Iraq War.

And do I really need to point out just how evenly spread across the ‘big three’ the expenses scandal was?

Peter Hitchens is right when he says our political compass is broken I’ll be happy to debate this point with anyone.

3) The best thing any true conservative can do for the UK is to NOT vote Conservative.

My strong belief: The country has suffered great social damage and needs a genuinely conservative party to restore it. This must be done via the collapse of the Conservative Party.

It is not only Labour to blame. The Tories helped bring about our surrender of sovereignty when the began begging the French to let us in the EU. Whilst Thatcher was a great PM in many ways, she willingly helped along with the dismantlement of our education system. John Major did nothing to oppose immigration or the radicalisation of our justice system that values reform over punishment and has our police acting more like social workers.

But Labour have perhaps struck the hardest blow. More cameras than ever are watching British people,our liberties are being chipped away every day ( detention rules, curbs on free speech, etc.) let crime has not decreased in tandem. Gordon Brown presided over the biggest financial collapse in the UK since the Great Slump.Politically correct terminology has infiltrated every school and government institution in the nation at the expense of common sense, taxes continue to rise and the promised referendum on EU membership is nowhere to be found. Brown has made clear his intentions to create constitutional ‘reform’, which could involve any number of attacks on systems that have worked so well for us over centuries of development.

Reversal of these nightmares Will take time and will require a party with true conservative values.Yet voters are often driven by habit and many still foolishly or misguidedly vote Tory.

The only solution is for the Conservative Party to lose one more election. Such a shock, such an unprecedented run of defeats by a party so confident and desperate for power would undoubtedly create a fallout. That fallout would likely result in the collapse or major reform and create political space for a real conservative Party like Popular Alliance to step in. This is a supposition I will expand on in my blog.

Suggested reading:

Andrew Marr “A History of Modern Britain”

Peter Hitchens: “The Broken Compass” , “The Abolition of Britain”

Sean Gabb “Culture Revolution, Culture War”

Melanie Phillips “Londonistan”

Jonathon Bowman’s speech on Marxism (available from his website).