Britain’s managed decline continues under the Tories

We have had Prime Ministers like the two candidates before

I’m not bothered who wins the Tory leadership race. It’s totally irrelevant to the governance of the United Kingdom. Whether it’s Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss, the end-result shall be identical, for both are entirely the same. There’s no meaningful difference at all between them.

Whomever happens to triumph, to climb the greasy pole and perch on top of it for several years until the inevitable fall and impalement, is irrelevant. Great Britain will remain in its devastating and forlorn decline. Vacuity of the kind Liz Truss vomits, such as ‘this country’s best days are ahead of us,’ won’t make a difference to our morale either. Does she not realise Britain was, for the best part of two centuries, the world’s most dominant and powerful nation? With the largest empire ever assembled, marching towards literary, political, social and scientific enlightenment? Is that something we’re approaching again? Well, no. That all ended more than a century ago. Instead, since 1918, we haven’t aspired to become anything more than that United States’ tiresome dog, yapping on the side-lines at other countries who we say we don’t like. And that, too, isn’t going to change. So what is going to be unleased?

Actually, I would ask: what is it that’s even being offered by these two candidates? The truth is, I’m not really sure. Something about the economy, I believe, and how they will solve the economic crisis that they both created. It’s risible, isn’t it. Rishsi Sunak: the highly intelligent candidate, capable of mending the economy. Or perhaps the man who picked up a Ming vase, slammed it onto a granite floor, and tells us how he’s the man to put it back together. You’d think we would politely tell him that we’ll find someone else for the task, just for principle’s sake. Or the highly conservative Liz Truss, who wished to abolish the monarchy – something which she never renounced before this leadership election – and no doubt a conviction that remains.

It all makes one wonder whether we’re being taken for fools once again. Of course, the Conservatives will no doubt be forced to form a coalition at the next election. But with whom one cannot say. The Labour party and the Lib Dems are simply too far ensconced in clown world to win: almost all of their policies are an anathema to the British public. Therefore, we ought to consider what we should be animating ourselves with. There seems to be three fundamental problems plaguing the country as it currently stands – excluding the economy, education, the legal system and the NHS.

The first, is that of a Covid-mindset – meaning being all too ready to bend over backwards to governmental Diktat. Last week demonstrated this phenomenon; some sunshine had the entire nation cowering under their beds, no doubt demanding an anti-sun vaccine, and hoping they were not going to catch fire. Everyone begged the government to tell them what to do. This attitude is simply not conducive to a free and responsible society. Any conservative ought to take note of that. To avoid being caught up in the recession tornado, people have to be warned that they shall not be rewarded for hebetude and indolence. And that the government is not there to order them around – not in a country worth living in at least. A message of personal responsibility would radiate above everything. A political slogan of ‘Sort yourself out’ would undoubtedly be victorious, for the United Kingdom is not a nation of natural loafers, nor should it become so.

The second is that constitutional reform. One of the most portentous yet unaddressed issues right now is the looming prospect of another Blair-era reformation, albeit slightly less clandestine. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are planning to abolish the First-Past-the-Post system in favour of proportional representation – something that would be suicidal for the Conservative party. So why hasn’t it been address? One would expect the Tories to be on a mission to conserve the system that keeps them afloat. Yet, one is met only with silence on the matter. In fact, this is a subject that Brexit opened up, but no one sought to seize the opportunity then. To campaign in favour of the post-1689 constitution rather than something rushed through by the most moronic left-wing political parties is worth undertaking. Have you seen Emily Thornberry, Angela Rayner and David Lammy? Does the Conservative party want them to have a say in a new constitution? Because I can’t imagine deliberations between those three reading like the Federalist Papers. I can’t remember Alexander Hamilton referring to James Maddison as ‘scum’. Perhaps I missed it. But that is the genuine danger we’re dealing with.

Thirdly, and most importantly, is that of the immigration question. Last year, more than ONE MILLION people moved to the UK. Anyone, whether left or right, would agree that that is simply too many people. There’s unanimity on that. What’s significant about that is the number of Rishi Sunaks will certainly decline when so many people are arriving. Thus, to have aspirational immigration and, indeed, to have success stories, there cannot be more than a million people coming each year. It’s impossible to support such a level. Moreover, it completely abandons the inspired and ambitious; you cannot be ‘unleashing Britain’s potential’ yet burden the country’s younger generations with a dismal future of problematical infrastructure, unaffordable housing, and terrible health and care, paid for with enormous and tyrannical taxes. It’s the big issue, yet once again was left out – perhaps because they do not wish the public to know the extent of it. However, if one dealt with immigration and identity for the first time and made it the first talking point on their manifesto, Downing Street would be theirs.

We need to forget about the next two years in terms of leadership: the real task is to be vociferous in demanding personal responsibility, constitutional conservation, and immigration control. Yet, these will not be addressed by the Tories any time soon, and especially by Sunak and Truss; instead, we must create the alternative candidates who will.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

20 Comments on Britain’s managed decline continues under the Tories

  1. Andrew Neil had a most important article in the “Daily Mail” on 6 August/5 August 2022 online, PLEASE READ IT. He wonders if Truss is up to defeating the ubiquitous Left Blob of woke, or even competent to deal with the cost of living, recession, and the energy fall-out from Ukraine. Will she stop the Kwarteng policy of selling off our assets to foreign interests, or the Patel failure to stem the flood of foreign immigrants? Or deal with the massive escalation in crime, from farm thefts to cyber hacking, ethnic gang murders and the slave/dope traffic. What about the NHS breakdown or the Irish border? She looks and sounds like a pathetically fake Maggie marionette – and she will have a (notional) finger on the Trident 2D5s. Ministerial record? – a Jill of all trades and Master (excuse the binary) of none.

  2. I’ve changed my mind about Dishy Rishi.
    THE ONLY MP TO EXPOSE THE EQUALITY ACT AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF WOKE CONTAMINATION AND PROPOSE REFORM.
    (So he’ll never make PM of “this great country of ours” in all its vibrant diversity of communities, now.)

    • @ Sandra Cooke
      Waking up to Woke – the Attorney General has an excellent article on the DIE totalitarianism in the “Daily Mail” on 4 August 2022. You can get it online. It’s a start – better late than never. But the Truss-Mordaunt alliance may ditch Ms Braverman, braver than most men in the “Con” party.

  3. See the full reports of Sunak’s spot-on exposure of the Equality Act as a Trojan Horse and his welcome promise of opposition to wokery.

  4. I published an article on the threat posed to representative democracy by so-called PR (an oxymoron – those elected under such a system are delegates of political party apparatchiks, not representative of the people) in the Summer edition of the Review (available from all good ….)

  5. I cannot and will not vote for any politician who does not recant on the COVID authoritarianism, climate hysteria demonisation of CO2 and the migration/multi-culti disaster which has befallen us. Recanting is a necessary precursor to correction. Neither Truss nor Sunak offers the faintest possibility of either so neither is acceptable.

  6. You’d think Liz Truss would have learned to drop routine politician expressions like “I want to see” and “That’s why”. And Rishi Sunak would have had the sense to avoid repeating almost verbatim his script about delivering medicines as a boy. One came across as cartoon character and the other as a glove puppet. Not only presenters are likely to collapse after their putrid performances.

    Trouble is: “Whoever you vote for, you get ‘The Government’.”

      • Sunak, as in Scooby-Doo or Yogi Bear, or best of all Morten Morland (see e.g. animated Rishi budget online) for authenticity. Truss, Sesame Street’s Prairie Dawn. The latest PRIVATE EYE is particularly funny on the great national contest for the illustrious successor to Wellington, Disraeli, Salisbury, Balfour, Churchill and Thatcher.

    • Truss continues the “I want to see….” waffle, which certainly contrasts with the grittier and more nationally realistic detail from the Hopeful Hindu. She is likely to win the “race” but make a mess of the premiership, lose the election, and the Conservative Party would have an opportunity to regroup with a seriously patriotic policy which puts Britain first, improbable as it seems, even before the needs of Taiwan, Ukraine, Israel and Timbuctoo. That’s what I “want to see”.

    • I want to see UK politicians who never say “I want to see” or “That’s why” or “When [they] were in”, policemen who never say “Wrong place at the wrong time” or “Accident waiting to happen” or “Our heart goes out”, officials who never say “Lessons to be learned” or “Draw a line under it” or “roll out” or “move on”.

  7. Not “anyone” would disagree about massive immigration, or it would not have happened. See Steve Moxon’s “Great Immigration Scandal” and Tom Bower’s “Broken Vows” (updated).

    The “capitalists” want cheap mobile labour with social costs forced on others. The “communists” want cheap mobile cannon fodder for social revolution forced on others. The “liberals” like Gordon “Global, global” Brown want a mobile world without borders and universal mixture, to the myopic applause of the Judeo-Christian clerisy who would be among its chief victims.

    As for the Sunak-Truss TV “debate”, the pushy Indian (net worth $200 million) came across as having a better grasp of what was required and had taken more trouble to rehearse his detailed material, but dominated the session by constant interruption, which 54-year old but still-sexy Sophie did little to stem, leaving his vacuous and less articulate opponent resembling the Little Match Girl on a foggy day. I prefer the analysis of Richard Murphy @ Tax Research Today to the distorted pro-Truss Daily Mail account on 26 July. “Liz” is fairly anti-woke, and has broad ministerial ministerial experience but not a lot actually to show for it. Putin would eat her for breakfast. They would make useful members of a Cabinet under the better leader that we are not going to get.

  8. Rather than conserving FPTP to keep the voters half-disenfranchised, the Tories might try to attract votes honestly so that a majority of people want them. Anyway, if a million people arrived here last year, it is rather obvious that people want to live here.

    • @ John Sampson
      How many millions of people who want to live here will it take until “a majority of people” don’t want to live here much longer?

    • Agreed. The author of this article is scaremongering about the abolition of an undemocratic voting system. If the Tories are any good, people will still vote for them under a more representative system. The writer here seems to think it should be conserved merely to serve the ruling party, who have given us such high levels of immigration. Introducing PR would allow a real conservative party to come to the fore. Hence Nigel Farage supports introducing PR. Incidentally, Emily Thornberry is a staunch opponent of PR. FPTP serves to keep Labour afloat too.