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.
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.
Despite the breast-beating going on about defence cuts and the enforced redundancies in the Armed Forces, one senses merely a ritual element with no serious commitment to maintaining our military strength.
Compare and contrast with seventy years ago – this cutting from The Guardian of 4 January 1941. The already tiny meat ration (which, of course, did not apply to the wealthy) was being cut still further in order to reduce consumption and free up shipping that would otherwise have been used to transport meat imports - such as corned beef from Argentina – and increase the flow of munitions to our forces in Libya.
Then, of course, we had a worthwhile objective – as the article reports: to "complete the rout of the Italians". Now, we seek to complete the rout of a tinpot dictator, with the help of the Italians, paying them for the air base rental.
Somehow, this does not seem to have quite the same degree of importance, which perhaps explains why people are less inclined to go short - especially when we also have the looting class to pay for.
Posts
