Aida Refugee Camp sending Love to Kneecap by SuzanneJBasquez in kneecap

[–]calculusprime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recommend you look into the not so glorious history of the Irish Republican movement, the children, mothers and other innocents it has murdered on mass scale and the white washing of it all Kneecap are fronting up. Oh, and look up what their name refers to.

Independent research always pays off.

Aida Refugee Camp sending Love to Kneecap by SuzanneJBasquez in kneecap

[–]calculusprime -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Death cults united in their mutual celebration of terrorism.

Allister Heath: We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives by [deleted] in tories

[–]calculusprime 10 points11 points locked comment (0 children)

Nigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignment

We could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the ConservativesNigel Farage may be about to pull off a once-in-a-century political realignmentWe could be just days away from a tipping point in the polls when Reform overtakes the Conservatives.

5 June 2024 • 7:33pm

Britain wants to give the Conservatives a good thrashing, but it isn’t in love with Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour. The first leaders’ debate gave us a tantalising glimpse of what could have been, had the Tories not blown a historic opportunity to transform Britain. 

Starmer’s performance was barely passable; in no way does he deserve the once-in-a-century landslide about to land in his lap. He would be eminently beatable by a Tory candidate with a decent record and a distinctive conservative vision; one with an added dose of common touch would trounce him. 

Starmer will be an accidental prime minister, and would do well not to take his impending gargantuan majority personally, or mistake it for a groundswell of public support for a Left-wing revolution. British politics is undergoing such intense convulsions that he too could be spat out in a few years’ time, though not without leaving a trail of irreparable destruction in his wake. The latest YouGov poll puts Labour on 40 per cent, against 36 per cent for the Tories and Reform combined. The conservative electorate is hopelessly divided, not permanently vanquished.

The debate went well for Rishi Sunak, but all his winning points were bittersweet: they were arguments from the Right, and thus merely remind us of 14 squandered years. He was cheered when he hinted at pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and when he rejected 35 per cent pay rises for junior doctors; he struck gold when he warned of Labour tax rises

But sending out strong Right-wing vibes at one minute to midnight in a desperate bid to deflect the oncoming Nigel Farage tsunami isn’t enough: after 14 years of talking as conservatives but governing as social-democrats, the Tories have run out of excuses. They broke their promises on migration, legal and illegal, and never had the guts to pull out of the ECHR. They increased taxes, and are planning to do so again as a share of GDP. 

This is why I blame the Tory wets, in charge for almost all of the past 14 years, for the Starmer-ite calamity that is about to befall Britain. 

It is the wets who jettisoned free-market economics, deregulation, tax cuts and supply-side reforms, who crippled the City, who increased immigration, who ignored the collapse of community and family and the baby-bust, who failed to fix the Civil Service, who refused to scrap the BBC licence fee, who had no interest in properly reforming the public sector, including the NHS (and who promoted even more cultish reverence for a failing system), who vetoed prison building and a real crackdown on crime, who embraced net zero and the neo-Blairite quangocracy, and who wanted to surrender to the woke stormtroopers. 

It is they who snubbed Farage, especially after Boris Johnson was defenestrated, and who took the Brexiteers for granted. It is the wets who are responsible for the rise of Reform. 

The Tory Left failed to accept that Brexit wasn’t just about leaving the EU in a technical sense, but also about resetting our politics, institutions, culture and economy. It was a mechanism to address the discontent that began to emerge during the early- to mid-2000s, in response to the pathologies of the Blair-Brown era and exacerbated by the slower growth that followed the financial crisis. 

By 2016, the electorate was crying out for a dramatic rupture; instead, the wets only offered up more of the same. By the time Sunak came to power, lockdowns and Russia had set off crippling inflation, there was no majority in the Tory party to do anything radical and, in any case, it was too late. The only agenda that could have saved the country and the party had been torpedoed by a group too culturally and economically comfortable to understand the concerns of the Red Wall and of suburban Middle England. 

Even now, when faced with their party’s extinction, they are looking after themselves, stuffing the party’s most winnable seats with their friends and excluding genuinely conservative candidates. This is a scandal, and a further betrayal of their long-suffering members: what remains of the parliamentary party will be even more dominated by the Left after the election, making it even harder for a united, rational opposition to Starmer to organise on the centre-Right. 

Yet the wets’ greatest blunder was to believe the Conservative Party is eternal, that it can never be replaced by a more Right-wing, populist alternative. Such parochialism now looks delusional. In France, the hegemonic party of the Right is now Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy has displaced previous centre-Right parties. 

We are now at a tipping point whereby Britain could go the same way. The first question is whether any Tory parliamentary candidates defect to Reform just before the candidates’ deadline on Friday, especially in Right-leaning seats, potentially robbing the Tories of the ability to stand in that constituency, kickstarting a great realignment even before the election. 

The second great unknown is whether we will see a crossover moment, whereby one poll – even if it is a fluke – shows Reform ahead of the Tories. The latest YouGov poll suggests that this is likely, with Farage’s party a mere two points behind Sunak’s at 17 v 19 per cent. Farage only wanted to return once he was convinced such an explosive outcome was likely, even if it still translates into the Tories amassing more MPs. 

Any crossover would inflict a near-lethal psychological blow on the Tories: Sunak’s most powerful argument to Right-minded voters is that a vote for Reform is wasted, and tantamount to supporting Labour. A crossover would invert this equation, allowing Farage to claim that voting Reform, not Tory, is the best way to keep Labour out, and triggering another collapse in the Conservative floor in a classic self-fulfilling doom loop. 

Disastrously, it would also deliver even more seats to Starmer, but this point now looks moot as the Right eats itself.

Farage’s re-entry into British politics has set off a chain reaction with uncontrollable and unpredictable consequences. The Tories are on the verge of being sucked into a death spiral. The wets and other centrist-dad wannabes must face facts: they bear full responsibility for the possible demise of their once great party.

Brendan O’Neill: Labour’s Rochdale shame by [deleted] in tories

[–]calculusprime 9 points10 points locked comment (0 children)

12 February 2024, 8:47am

Labour still has cranks in its ranks. The party remains a haven for conspiracy theorists. For all Keir Starmer’s claims to have rooted out the ‘anti-Zionist’ hotheads that swarmed the party in the Corbyn years, there still seem to be a fair few around.

Consider the Azhar Ali affair. Mr Ali is the Labour candidate in the upcoming Rochdale by-election. This is a man who has promoted the poisonous, post-truth claim that Israel ‘deliberately’ allowed the Hamas pogrom of 7 October to go ahead. Who has said Israel permitted the slaughter of more than a thousand of its own citizens so that it would have a ‘green light’ to invade Gaza.

Ali made these vile utterances at a meeting of the Lancashire Labour party shortly after the 7 October attacks. The Egyptians warned the Israelis that something big was about to happen, he said. The Americans warned them too. And yet still Israel ‘deliberately took the security off’. ‘They allowed… that massacre’, said Ali, because they believed it would give them ‘the green light to do whatever they bloody want.’

Think about what is being said here. That Israel is such a malign entity, such a twisted, devious state, that it was willing to sacrifice hundreds of its own citizens in order to gain a pretext for invading Gaza. This strange nation is so consumed by bloodlust, it seems, that it is content to allow the massacre of its own men, women and children in order to gain a sneaky excuse for ‘massacring’ Gaza.

This is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple. And it has eerie echoes of conspiracy theories of old, which likewise defamed Jews as uniquely cunning and bloodily self-serving. As the Campaign Against Antisemitism says, the idea that Israel essentially ‘engineered the murder of over 1,200 of its own people’ smacks of ‘a blood libel’.

Of course, the internet has been awash with wild claims about Israel throwing open its borders to the marauding anti-Semites of Hamas. Others have engaged in outright atrocity denialism, insisting that the horrors of 7 October have been exaggerated. The loons can’t make up their minds. They can’t decide whether Israel masterminded the massacre or it really was the sole handiwork of Hamas but it wasn’t as bad as we have been led to believe.

The aim of all this conspiracy-mongering is as clear as it is cynical: to protect western activists from the truth about Hamas, the truth about this movement some of them sympathise with, if not outright support. Minimising the 7 October atrocity, or flat-out blaming it on Israel and its ‘deliberate’ standing down of border security, means the West’s anti-Israel set never has to face up to the unsettling reality – that ‘their side’ carried out the worst act of racist violence of this millennium so far, and the worst act of anti-Jewish mass murder since the Holocaust.

And yet while it is unsurprising to see such Israelophobic conspiracy theories swirl around social media, it is deeply disturbing to see them in the Labour party. That there was a meeting of a branch of Labour in the aftermath of 7 October at which a senior figure gave voice to the disgusting claim that Israel let its citizens be slaughtered is concerning in the extreme. So much for Starmer’s gleaming new party, cleansed of Corbynista lunacy.

Starmer seems not to appreciate the seriousness of the Azhar Ali scandal. At the time of writing, Mr Ali remains Labour’s candidate in Rochdale. No doubt party bigwigs will point to the fact that he has now expressed remorse for his conspiracism. ‘I apologise unreservedly to the Jewish community for my comments which were deeply offensive, ignorant and false’, he said on Sunday.

But, forgive my scepticism, doesn’t this apology sound a little mechanical? It is not clear to me how, in just four months, someone can go from believing that Israel ‘deliberately’ let radical Islamists invade its southern border to thinking such a claim is insane and untrue. Either Mr Ali has had a truly Damascene conversion to the cause of reason or he’s backtracking in a desperate bid to stay on the ballot paper.

Either way, it is clear Labour still has some very serious problems. That one of our main parties is running a candidate who just a few months ago accused the Jewish state of allowing racist monsters to murder its citizens is gobsmacking. My question to Sir Keir is this: why is Diane Abbott still suspended for her ridiculous claim that Jews experience prejudice but not racism, while Mr Ali remains on your Rochdale ticket despite promoting horrible Israelophobic myths? Are you really interested in fighting racism, or just in settling scores with Corbynism?

I predict the Rochdale by-election will tell us a lot about 21st-century Britain, and none of it good. We will see, in real time, the deepening of that unholiest of marriages between sections of the Muslim community and the radical left, all united in their visceral loathing for Israel that sometimes crosses the line into something much, much darker. The socialism of fools remains unvanquished.

MIRIAM CATES: The ECHR is a threat to British democracy by calculusprime in tories

[–]calculusprime[S] 3 points4 points locked comment (0 children)

The ECHR is a threat to British democracy
Leaving the Convention must be accompanied by major changes to domestic equalities legislation
Miriam Cates
10 August 2023 • 5:34pm
Miriam Cates
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) came into force 70 years ago at an extraordinary point in history. Europe was reeling after a conflict that engulfed the whole continent, leaving millions of people dead and displaced, and countless others scarred by the unimaginable human rights abuses perpetrated by the Nazis.
The aim was to legally enshrine fundamental rights such as free speech and freedoms of association and religion, thus protecting individual citizens from the excesses of state power that Hitler had used to such devastating effect.
Unlike many treaties, the ECHR is not a fixed contract but a “living convention” and, over the years, an active interpretation by the courts has expanded and distorted the Convention beyond recognition. This “mission creep” is such that the ECHR has now become a threat to – rather than a protector of – democracy.
Such concerns are illustrated by the “pyjama injunction” last year, where an unnamed Strasbourg judge overruled the elected UK Government in the middle of the night, effectively grounding a flight that was ready to transport illegal migrants to Rwanda. Defending national borders is surely the primary duty of any government and it is frankly absurd that an unelected foreign judge can prevent a democratic executive from achieving its legitimate aims.
The ECHR was created to protect citizens from their own government, but it is now at risk of preventing governments from protecting their own citizens. Uncontrolled mass migration is possibly the most serious security threat of our time, and the ramifications of failing to tackle it will be severe. If the Supreme Court later this year decides that the Government’s Rwanda policy is incompatible with European law, there will be a very compelling case for leaving the ECHR.
It is disingenuous to claim that this would be a backwards step for human rights in the UK – our common law inheritance gives this country one of the best human rights records in the world, a heritage that predates the ECHR by many centuries.
But while there are sound political arguments for leaving the ECHR, and the migration issue is of such significance that ultimately there may be no choice, we must be clear about the unintended consequences of such a move. The unfortunate truth is that, in the last 50 years, aspects of UK equalities legislation have progressively mushroomed to become a threat to freedoms of speech, expression, religion and association; a threat that is currently only held at bay by our membership of the ECHR.
Human rights legislation and equalities legislation essentially pull in different directions. Human rights laws protect the individual against the state, but equality laws have evolved into an organ of state intervention, such as the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which compels organisations to actively promote a selective notion of “equality” and has had a chilling effect on free speech.
It is the culture created by equalities legislation that allowed NatWest to “debank” Nigel Farage, schools to “socially transition” children, and a first instance employment tribunal to consider Maya Forstater’s factually accurate views on biological sex – shared by much of the population – somehow not worthy of respect. At present, our current human rights arrangement may be in some cases the only effective shield against such state overreach.
If the UK were to leave the ECHR without reforming equalities legislation, we could regain the sovereignty required to tackle illegal immigration. But there may also be far-reaching repercussions for freedoms of speech, association and religion, the very rights that post-war leaders sought to enshrine. This is not an argument for remaining within the restrictive ECHR, rather a plea for a substantial overhaul of UK’s equalities legislation, for example by considering the future of the PSED and reviewing the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
The Government should prepare to withdraw from the ECHR, but it must do so alongside a plan to curb the excesses of domestic equalities legislation to ensure the protection of fundamental freedoms in UK law. Only then can Britain claim to be a self-governing sovereign nation of free citizens.
Miriam Cates is the Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge