Why couldn’t this be the content for the next Labour Party manifesto?
This entry was posted on Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 1:30 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Excellent article and from one who has family residing in the UK, I would like to see the country return to its proud British roots. I especially like the following platform suggestion:
“Abandon the failed experiment of “multiculturalism” with its politically correct requirement that mainstream social values and beliefs be downplayed in case they “offend” a minority group. We should be a tolerant society, but if we do not give proper respect to traditional British customs we risk creating a rudderless country with no common values. “
After all, the country is well on its way to becoming the “United Kingdom of Islam” and the people need to remember that they are first and foremost Britons. This would be a difficult feat for a socialist party to achieve, but just as Churchill said, “Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.” Let’s hope…
Things are not quite that bad. I believe David Horowitz is right when he says that if the European cultural elites continue to suppress discussion of the Islamic threat, Europe will wake up eventually but the reaction will be nationalistic, even fascistic.
That is a sound reason to continue to fight the leftist poison of post-modernism and multiculturalism (in it’s present form). I see little wrong in celebrating other cultures, provided those cultures do not break the laws or social taboos of our country.
One can be a socialist and have national pride – the Atlee government of 1945 certainly did and Clement Atlee was one of Churchill’s stauntest supporters of prosecuting the war.
National pride is a virtue unless you belong to the PCP (politically correct/post-colonial paradigm) brigade, in which case the West is uniquely wicked in a manner that cancels out all evil in the rest of the world.
I concede that I’m taking a rather extreme view and agree with your position on post-modernism and multiculturalism.
As far as Clement Attlee is concerned, he may have been Churchill’s staunchest supporters, but he also supported Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. In fact, Churchill compared Chamberlain attaining Attlee’s support for the Munich appeasement to a rabbit dominating lettuce. I have no doubt that Attlee was a patriot and performed admirably during the war years, but I believe he consistently blew with the wind of majority opinion (even as PM).
You’re wrong about Atlee and appeasement. From 1935, Atlee and the leadership of the Labour Party opposed appeasement and pushed for rearmament. This position was very unpopular in the party, but there had been a big fight within the party against the pacifists and the anti-appeasement faction had won, primarily because of the recognition of the danger posed to international peace by Germany and out of solidarity with their socialist colleagues in Germany.
It was the Conservative Party who carried out appeasement, hoping that it would prevent war. There is still a strong strain of that conservative “realist” school today, both in the British Conservative Party and in the Bush Administration (Robert Gates and Condi Rice).
Also one might add, apart from a short period of naive optimism towards the Soviet Union in 1946, Atlee recognised the danger that Soviet expansionism posed and helped form NATO as a defensive alliance against that threat.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.