A New Place Of Exile

Richard Hutton

Category: The Right-Minded View

Why won’t Jeremy Corbyn simply stop Brexit? It defies reason.

It really is a mystery why Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t simply give the word, and instantly reverse Brexit. It’s not as if the task could be any easier.

All he needs to do is moan about it a bit: tut now and then, while giving a roll of the eyes – say it’s a bad idea, and all that. Then everyone will live happily ever after.

For proof – look no further than the barnstorming success of the Liberal Democrats in this very venture; after they adopted a Remain or Die approach to electioneering – and promptly reaped the dividends.

In the General Election of 2015, the Lib Dems faltered to a measly 7.9% of the vote.

But in the contest of 2017, they romped home to an incredible 7.4% of the vote.

If only Corbyn firmed-up his plans in like manner, and stopped putting principle before power (or power before principle, I can’t remember which one applies now) then he might enjoy the same enviable record.

And let us not forget that this is all his doing in the first place.

True, the Conservative Party decided to conduct the referendum. While their ministers campaigned for Brexit; and virtually the entire press kept saying European migration was a terrible, uncontrollable menace – even though they knew it wasn’t true.

But if Corbyn had only rated the EU 7.6/10, instead of 7.5/10, then the United Kingdom would still be in the EU. Admittedly, it still is in the EU – but this is beside the point.

It may very well be the case that the Tories bought a Parliamentary majority – ensuring they would have more votes than all of their opponents combined; so any policies they pursue cannot be defeated by opposition MPs.

But that is a pretty basic impossibility to defy.

Yet does Corbyn make the effort to invert mathematics? I think we all know the answer there.

What’s more, he perversely refuses to support a second referendum – even after the first one went so well; meaning that a sequel would be more than welcome.

In sum: Jeremy Corbyn clearly owes us all a big apology.

For shame.

Advertisements

The Right-Minded View: would replacing Jeremy Corbyn crush the Tories?

It is not difficult to surmise why a plethora of right-wing pundits might want Labour to supplant the left-wing leader, who recently led his party to 40% of the public vote.

Because the kind-hearted, approbative souls that they are simply want what is best for their political opponents, I would aver.

Now, I’d be the last to admit that I am no expert on such matters; but if I have learned anything about public opinion from the topical news publications, then I can say with assurance that our political landscape would be comprehensively transformed, by the simple adjunct of one or two minor tweaks.

Thus, I submit the following prediction of vote-share, in the event of any upcoming General Election:

  • Labour, led by someone like that Macron fellow: 75% of the popular vote.
  • Tories: a respectable 40-43%. Fair play, there.
  • Lib Dems: a solid 55% (don’t ask, don’t tell is advisable here).
  • A New Centrist Party, which supports and opposes Brexit: 76%.
  • Another New Centrist Party, which doesn’t: 14.5%.
  • Any further New Centrist Parties: ibid. [1]

That is how I see the electorate unfolding, at least; and I am very rarely wrong about these things [2].

Therefore the upshot is perfectly clear: Labour merely need to clone Emmanuel Macron, perhaps extracting his DNA from a superfluous follicle; and with sufficient time allowed for gestation, fully three halves of the electorate’s vote will be theirs.

I really cannot understand why they have not done this already.

I would add as a precautionary note, however, that the aim of this cloning gambit should be a Boys from Brazil-type scenario, rather than any Jurassic Park-esque flapdoodle.

But we need not be too particular.

 

[1] Total electorate: 278%

Sample: 12 people – who all seemed perfectly normal, so far as I could tell.

 

[2] For example, I predicted that Labour would be obliterated at the General Election of 2017; with Theresa May gaining a 100 seat majority – resulting in a lifetime of Tory government.

And, if you replace some of the words, with ones which have a different meaning, I stand vindicated.

The Right-Minded View: Frank Field’s resignation – the peril of too many principles?

 

Common decency itself stands imperiled? Then it must be defended, with all our might!

And there is only one fellow who can but fail to see us right on that score.

I refer, of course, to the unknighted Sir Frank Field – who remains without knighthood solely because he considers the honour beneath him; and would only ever accept a higher accolade.

Field has never fully deserved his reputation as a radical left-wing firebrand, in my view. Even his admirers have been compelled to describe him as “not without competence” – on more than one occasion.

In fact, I recall only too well the time he regaled a crowd of onlookers with the most moving story of a malfunctioning photocopier that I have ever had the privilege to hear with my own eyes. Displaying an astute ear for the rhythms and cadences of colloquial speech all the while.

These, and similar profundities, would shore up any traditional vote.

What’s more, during a Q and A session afterwards – when accosted by a saucy young activist – Field demonstrated his adept handling of even the most taxing conundrum.

While I did not quite hear the point of inquiry put to the truly great man, I can quote his answer verbatim:

“Neither you, nor I – nor the parlour maid – may rightfully demand an answer to the question ‘which vegetable?'”

And if Field can muster such sangfroid, in such circumstances, then I have every confidence in his ability to becalm even the most boisterous gallimaufry that fate and the continentals may conspire to unleash upon us, between them.

No easy task, in this day and age.

The Right-Minded View: now is the time for a Centrist movement.

There has never been a better moment for a new centrist movement, in my opinion, than now.

Admittedly, there are currently more centrist parties than centrist voters these days. Nonetheless, it’s time to re-draw the political map, by stir-frying some bold ideas into the strategy wok.

While those of a tribalist mien say: changing things, by keeping them the same, is impossible.

I say: moderate progress, within the bounds of the law – or else perfidy beckons.

And that is the key here – you can’t just go around bally well changing things. Not when it could impact upon even the most respectable members of society.

However, it is evidently of the utmost urgency that we deliver an invigorating dose of moral fibre to the nation’s political gullet.

So, what I propose therefore, is a healthy compromise.

Every day, two minutes can be set aside – as a matter of legal obligation – and a picture of Jeremy Corbyn with the word ‘Brexit’ superimposed onto his forehead, is beamed into every public place throughout the land.

Thereafter, people shall be given a full 120 seconds to vent the full array of their splenetic juices, for all they are worth.

Because of economies of scale and such, this timeframe could be extended in those parts of the country which are harder to penetrate; and reduced in locales where people are likely to reach boiling point, at what would – in other circumstances – be an alarming rate.

So this seems like the kind of thing that could work really well; and truly unite the country, once again.

Meanwhile, we can keep everything else the same – and go back to deploring the old foodbanks and wars (etc) as a matter of regrettable necessity. Just like we were doing before the dread day of June 23rd, 2016.

Significantly, politicians never misled anyone, or did anything really bad, before that juncture. Not so as you’d notice, at least. Though the trajectory has declined, ineluctably, ever since.

As for those people suggesting that the government of 1945 was considered revolutionary-left, and denounced as extreme by the Centrists of its day – I can only hope that someone is able to go back in time, and correct the historical record, for all our benefit.

The Right-Minded View: the Tommy Robinson protest march

It’s an outrage that Tommy Robinson has been imprisoned, just because he speaks out about how Muslim women are oppressing everyone, by wearing headscarves.

It makes you wonder what you are allowed to say, these days.

I know some people have pointed out that Tommy was convicted for contempt of court – but that’s the whole problem! What kind of police state has Britain become lately, when courts apply a law which has been in place since the 14th century?

You can’t even protect your house from terrorism, by stapling a ham sandwich to your own front door. Not without people giving you funny looks, and calling you “weird”, at least.

And there shouldn’t be any of these double standards, either. Muslims are always being let-off when they commit crimes: because of the biased liberal PC state.

And yet I’ve heard about statistics on the internet, which say that nearly all the inmates of state prisons are Muslims. Which just goes to show how dangerous they are.

What you have to understand is that this is scientific: the more Muslim someone is, the more crime they might commit.

So, if you’re 50% Muslim, then you’re only twice as likely to be criminal as someone who is 25% Muslim. But if you’re 0% Muslim, then you’re more unlikely to commit crimes than somebody who is a bit Muslim. And you can’t argue with basic facts – whether they’re true, or not.

But while no Muslims are ever imprisoned, Tommy Robinson has been put in a jail which is 100% Muslim.

Not only are all the prisoners Muslims, but the prison staff are as well. And the library books are all copies of the Koran. And the administrators use Sharia computers, with Halal keyboards. And even the drinking water has been converted to Islam.

Yet who is it that gets called “violent” or “extremist”?

British patriots, who support Tommy Robinson! Just because some of them have been throwing bricks through windows, and placing bombs outside Mosques. Hitting people, and things.

Which probably does go a bit far – even though it’s understandable.

But it’s not right or fair to use the actions of a few individuals to generalize about a larger group of people – or call them ‘terrorist-sympathizers’. That’s just plain wrong!

We’re not like the Muslims, after all. You don’t see us going around telling women what they can or can’t wear – which is why the Burkha should be banned, and wearing one should be an arrestable offence.

We don’t stand for intolerance. This is a free country – which is why we need to lock up anyone who takes liberties.

We just expect people to integrate into our society – which is why anyone who doesn’t speak English should be deported.

I mean, you can’t have lots of people living together, when there are some differences between us and them.

It would be like having a football team, with players from different countries in it, all playing for the same side. Or a stadium full of people who support opposing clubs, but manage to get along with each other. That stuff just doesn’t happen.

And I really am getting quite tired of the ‘You can’t say that because it offends me!’ crowd, who promote over-sensitivity. Upsetting people the way they do, and stifling debate. They really should shut up.

It’s not right to call people names – or say they’re “racist”. How can it be racism, when Islam isn’t even a race? It’s not like Africans, or foreigners!

There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’ – people are just trying to shut down criticism of Islam, and we need to be able to talk about the facts.

Like all those passages in the Koran, that tell people to fly planes into buildings, and stuff. Which is why only Muslims have ever been kamikazes.

And now what are they doing? Coming to Britain, and trying to ban Thicc Piglet – because it’s opposed to Halalic inscriptions!

This is a struggle between goodies and baddies. So we need to take a stand. We need to make Great Britain Great Britain Again. Only different – but the same.

We need to unprison Tommy Robinson, and say “we are all Thicc now”. Send a message.

Maybe if people had done that sooner, then maybe Charlie Hebdo and Salmon Rushdie might still be alive.

The Right-Minded View: Tony Blair’s wise words & Article 50’s anniversary.

I, for one, welcome Tony Blair’s wise words today. On the very first anniversary of Article 50, they could not be more timely.

I have had my disagreements with him in the past – for instance, his choice of tie has occasionally been less than sober.

I was even slightly inconvenienced by the Iraq war – as one of the protests against it caused traffic delays; which resulted in me being more than an hour late in getting home.

Nonetheless, even I have managed to overcome the fact that I agree with Blair about everything, and recognise him as the most principled man in politics: due to his staunch and unwavering opposition to something that I also happen to dislike.

In fact, I genuinely don’t get why people disfavour Blair.

So far as I can see it, his only “crime” was to undertake a humanitarian intervention; which made creative interpretation of the law – and imaginative deployment of rhetoric.

What’s so wrong about all of that? That sort of thing used to be taught in the better universities, as part of a young gentleman’s upbringing. Prizes were given.

And the way people carry on, you’d be forgiven for thinking that his post-PM role, running PR campaigns on behalf of dictators, was unsavoury.

The fact that Blair has managed to keep himself busy, while commanding high fees, strikes me as a true measure of the man’s qualities, I say.

I mean, he opposes Brexit – surely that more than makes up for everything else, anyway?

The Right-Minded View: I, and the people who agree with me, are very sensible.

We all know that Jeremy Corbyn is personally responsible for everything that people who occupy the sensible centre ground of politics currently dislike.

True, the Conservative Party decided to conduct the Brexit referendum – and were aided and abetted by Sensible Moderate Labour MPs, who all supported their call to have one; and arguably helped lay the rhetorical groundwork for the Leave campaign.

Therefore, clearly, Corbyn is the one to blame.

As for the shocking revelations that Corbyn once expressed a vague bit of support for an iffy mural half a decade ago – well, it simply takes the biscuit.

This isn’t like sending vans around BAME neighbourhoods, telling foreign people to go home – or deploying derogatory terms while discussing woodpiles in Parliament.

And it certainly isn’t on a par with using colourful language about People of Colour, before assuming the mantle of Foreign Secretary.

Oh no – even famed anti-racism campaigners, such as Nigel Farage and Norman Tebbit have seen fit to vent spleen at Corbyn. They can see that this sort of thing isn’t cricket.

Meanwhile long-standing advocates of religious tolerance, such as Iain Paisley Jr, have taken the very brave, and very principled stance of confronting the shortcomings of their political opponents.

Quite rightly too, I say.

And let us reserve our fullest condemnation for Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to condemn Vladimir Putin.

All we ask is that Corbyn utter a simple condemnation – no more, no less. We all know it would suffice.

Now, admittedly Corbyn did condemn Putin – but it’s not enough to simply utter condemnation, is it now? We all know it doesn’t suffice.

If only a Sensible Moderate Labour MP was in charge of their party right now – they could make good use of all the competence, and long-term thinking, which the strategic masterminds behind the Ed Stone are renowned for.

The Right-Minded View: Cold War – Part Deux. This time, it’s personal.

As far this whole Russian brouhaha goes – there’s a time and place to talk about politics. That time is never; and that place is nowhere.

I mean, do we really want the Houses of Parliament to be politicized?

It is not the job of the Opposition to actually oppose the government, after all – merely to support the way it is going about things; and perhaps pledge to go one better.

It comes as a matter of no small surprise, therefore, that the leader of the Opposition balks at the suggestion we must place our absolute trust in the proper authorities.

It’s people like that who allow the facts get in the way of a good story.

Even steadfast supporters of Jeremy Corbyn – such as commentators in the tabloid newspapers – have called this poor form; while, his unfailingly loyal backbenchers have seen fit to complain about him, for the first time ever.

By contrast, the fine response by many opposition MPs was a truly glorious sight to behold. There are times where the national interest comes first. The enemy in the Salisbury spy attack is Russia, not the government.

It’s not hard.

It’s called doing what’s right by this country’s proud history and traditions.

In fact, the real mystery is why such individuals have ended up as pariahs among their own voters. Scrambling obediently into line behind a Tory Prime Minster, purely to embarrass their own party’s leader? That’s such stuff as statesmanlike dreams are made of, I say.

True, Corbyn did condemn Russia and Putin – repeatedly; over a variety of formats. But it’s just not enough.

And while we received a very sober and dignified call to see evidence, before acting, from the French President Emmanuel Macron; Corbyn villainously asked to see evidence before acting – for reasons of pure evil.

What kind of irresponsible politician asks for an investigation to take place, instead of instantly rushing to conclusions?

What kind of leader stands by due process, instead of immediately bowing to political expedience; and following the crowd?

Oh, Corbyn might have called for asset-freezing injunctions; but what about REAL measures – such as, you know, strong words in Parliament? Macho posturing, bombast, saber-rattling – full of sound and fury. That sort of thing.

As ever, it fell to the electable members of the Labour Party, to set a solid example, for all to admire. Penning a good, stiff letter, thus:

“We, the undersigned, welcome this bout of hot air from a desperate Prime Minister trying stoke and exploit a major panic, in order to deflect attention from the appalling mess her government has made of – well, everything; by wrapping herself in an aura of faux patriotism”.

And if the most principled opportunists in Parliament are willing to place blind faith in the government, then it is not for the likes of you and me to question matters.

As for those wags mentioning the Light Brigade, or the whole Iraq jolly – well, it simply lacks taste.

If anything, it inclines one to re-evaluate who the real victims of that excellent war actually were.

I would wager that politicians whose judgment is questioned, instead of automatically deferred to, have suffered far more than the many thousands of people they helped liberate to death.

And let us have no more of this false-equivalence malarkey.

While Britain would surgically launch a drone strike at a wedding party, Russia instead deploys an indiscriminate nerve agent – which makes no distinction between combatant and civilian. A clear difference, between the two countries.

Our mistakes are made in good faith – and we learn all the correct lessons; no matter how many times it should prove necessary.

All told, it is overdue that we stopped politicizing the behaviour of politicians; and furthermore, Russia really should just shut up, and go away.

The Right-Minded View: on the new offence of intimidating one’s social and political betters.

It is about time that a government law was introduced, putting a stop to intimidation in public discourse.

Nobody abhors the nanny state more than I – but this is one area where a clampdown is long over due. And pronto.

Members of the common herd calling politicians “war criminals” – just because they initiated illegal wars. Or saying that their elected representatives are “incompetent”, and their policies “ill-conceived”. It all goes too far.

There was none of this online thuggery when I was a lad. Admittedly, the internet didn’t exist back then – but that is largely beside the point at hand.

I worry that our public debate is coarsening into a feral free for all. And also that political correctness means we can no longer say what we wish, without being tutted at.

I’ll have you know that it is quite possible to disagree with somebody, without demeaning them on account of opposing viewpoints. Through engaging in childish name-calling, for example.

If only the members of generation snowflake would take that on board.

But instead, what do we see? Braying mobs of young folk hurting peoples’ feelings; using rude words – and making them upset.

Likening grown men to gammon. Throwing cornflakes at cafes. Disagreeing with their social betters on the internet!

Not to mention radical students censoring panto; and militant statistics-watchdogs censuring government ministers.

Well, it’s not on. The decent among us shouldn’t have to put up with this sort of thing.

Thank God we have a sensible government, I say. One which will put a stop to PC palaver; and allow us to voice our robust opinions freely, once again.

And arrest anyone who makes disrespectful comments about us, in the process.

The Right-Minded View: Men evolved to protect the boundaries of tribes, Feminism precedes the fall of empires – a commonsense approach to sexual politics.

Call me old-fashioned if you will, but from where I’m standing so much of what passes for feminism these days is not feminism per se, as I see it; but – instead – an unabashed attempt to achieve socio-economic parity for women in all walks of life.

This is of course not unreasonable; but anyone with a pair of ears can see that it is not enough. I think we have to look at this in context.

I simply cannot remember the last time I read an article about genuine areas of concern for women – such as the most efficient arrangements of potpourri; or the best way to find a husband.

As for so-called ‘sexual equality’ – I have an acquaintance who is very knowledgeable about such things; and according to him it is entirely unnecessary in this day and age.

For example, women don’t need equal pay legislation – as they can simply work additional hours, until they have earned as much as their male colleagues.

What’s more, rather than worry unduly about reproductive rights, they might simply embrace a lifetime of celibacy instead.

There is no need for educational opportunities either, he reckons. Should a woman need help with anything complex, she may simply request assistance from any passing gentleman that happens to be in the vicinity; who – being a fellow of gentility – will graciously grant it forthwith.

I feel that little more remains to be said on this subject, quite frankly; save to note that sexual equality is perhaps a matter best discussed between a woman and her doctor.