He speaks too soon - by Richard... Friday, September 02, 2011

He speaks too soon - by Richard... Friday, September 02, 2011

David Cameron is preening himself over the "success" of the campaign in Libya, saying he would be prepared to use force again during his time as prime minister.  With almost staggering pomposity though, he declares that two conditions must first be satisfied: that the use of force must be morally right and also achievable – with the backing of the international community before it begins.

In response, one must observe that The Boy is being a tad premature talking about "success". The fighting in Libya is not yet over and, even when it is, the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan should tell him that the initial phase of a "regime change" operation is often the easiest. What comes next takes longer and is invariably harder.

Then, as to any future military action, Cameron may not have noticed – but the man who passes for his defence secretary is currently engaged in dismantling Britain's Armed Forces. The next time they are needed, there may be nothing left in the locker.

Finally, one seriously wonders how this creature can pontificate about "morality". Given his background and current performance as a politician, he should leave such matters to the priests. At least they tend to have some formal qualifications in these matters.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

We're all in this together? - by Richard...

My throw-away line about wartime food rationing not applying to the wealthy inyesterday's piece elicited a couple of queries, which require a follow-up.

The myth-making of the period – as with the attempts by Cameron now – has it that we were "all in this together", equal partners in the struggle against evil (or, in this case Gordon Brown's profligacy, which amounts to the same thing).

And, as always, the myth is just that – a myth. Although during the war, the amount of food that could be purchased over the counters was rationed, the restrictions did not apply to restaurants. There, in 1941, customers could eat as much as they could afford.

Needless to say, in the high class restaurants such as the Savoy, prices soared, so diners had to be well heeled to patronise these establishments - altough price controls were introduced later. Nevertheless, in January 1941, a week after the meat ration had been cut, Cassandra from The Daily Mirrorreported having had in five days at least seven times his weekly meat ration, five times his bacon ration, nearly half a pound of butter, and so much sugar that he couldn't eat it all.

Not content with this debauch, he wrote (pictured – click to enlarge to readable size) "I have swallowed saddle-of-hare in wine sauce, lobster thermidor, the inevitable (if you live that way!) caviar, Hungarian pork goulash, quails-in-aspic and truffled goose livers".

In addition, he wrote, "I have climbed outside two dozen oysters and a considerable quantity of fish, ranging from smoked salmon, by way of tunny, sardines and anchovies, to an enormous Dover sole". Rationing was only for little people.

Much of this booty had to be imported in increasingly scare shipping, at peril from being sunk from Hitler's U-Boats. Ship owners – who doubtless dined high on the hog at the Savoy – had no worries though. They were fully compensated for the loss of their ships.

Not so the seamen who manned those ships. Paid by the day, those who were fortunate enough to survive a torpedoing had their wages stopped the moment their ships went under. If they then spent harrowing days in open boats awaiting rescue, they did it in their own time and at their own expense. Nor were they even compensated for the loss of their personal possessions which went down with the ships.

In all probability, such inequalities – and the resentments they engendered – contributed to the landslide Labour victory in 1945. Churchill was seen as a great war leader, but he presided over a rotten, corrupt society and people were looking for a change.

Such inequalities exist today, but are even more "in your face" when we are supporting the banksters, the parasite classes – the white-collar looters - and the millionaire politicians telling us to tighten our belts. The cry of "we're all in this together" was as hollow then as it is now. And people are just as desirous of change – the only problem is that there is so little on offer.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Linkage - by Richard...

I shall never forget how, shortly after he had started his own blog, Roger Helmer despatched his PR lady (being far too grand to do such things himself) to contact me, demanding that I put a link on EURef to his fantastically important blog. 

Then, and now, it never occurred to the dear Roger that he should reciprocate with a link to EURef and, despite his wish to be seen as a man of the people, he links neither to us nor to any other independent blogger. Strangely, we do not link to the Helmer emporium.

Cue then James Higham about the importance of independent political blogging, and how the corporates are trying to monopolise the net. We need to cross-link to each other and promote the smaller bloggers who otherwise struggle for an audience, he says.

The points are well made, and noted. His own, extremely professional group blog Orphans of Liberty is always worth a read.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Baby talk - by Richard...

The babies in the Daily Failygraph really excel themselves today with a leader of quite stunning silliness.

Bemoaning the effect the EU's agency workers directive is going to have on our economy, it suggests that our "eurosceptic" chancellor "defies the EU, and insists that the directive's implementation be delayed or abandoned", for the sake of British jobs and businesses. In such dangerous times, the leader prattles, "extreme measures are sometimes called for". 

The idea that our chancellor is a "eurosceptic" is something that only the babies in the MSM could dream up. The very idea is absurd. But even more absurd is the idea that this government could or would defy the EU. We could see Osborne flying to the moon unaided before that might happen. 

But then what does the Failygraph leader-writer think would happen if the British government now refused to implement a directive it had already agreed? Has it not heard of compliance procedures, and fines? Is the newspaper suggesting we ignore those as well?

Needless to say, we would be delighted if that was to happen. Such action would precipitate a major constitutional crisis and push the United Kingdom towards the exit door.

Somehow, though, we don't think that is what the paper has in mind. More like we are dealing with this soggy, babyish silliness, betraying an inability to grasp the nature of the European Union and the implications of such actions. This is sort of akin to suggesting that we give an ultimatum to Hitler for invading Poland (72 years ago to the day) but not then expecting us to go to war.

The grown-up approach would be to recognise that the EU is uniquely damaging to the national interest, and to "suggest" that we leave. But the paper cannot bring itself to do that, leaving it with nothing more than its silly, babyish posturing. How pathetic this once proud newspaper has become.