But, QM, they're all parasites - especially the political class!

The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on the matter of Emma Harrison (a4e) who "pocketed £8.6million last year - most of it from the taxpayer". QM also quotes from the newspaper article:

"MPs voiced astonishment at the size of the payment to Mrs Harrison, and questioned why the firm had continued to win contracts despite the ‘abysmal’ record.The company even received a share of £63million in ‘termination fees’ when the DWP ended a previous back-to-work programme in which the firm was involved and replaced it with a new one. MPs were told that A4e had missed its target of getting 30 per cent of people on the previous ‘Pathways to Work’ programme into a job. The committee heard the success rate was 9 per cent. The company last night claimed a 24.2 per cent final figure. Despite missing its targets the firm was taken on to run five lucrative contracts."

It does beg the question whether Emma Harrison, in gaining five lucrative contracts (having previously 'screwed up') hit upon an idea that had 'legs' - and promptly opened them; but I digress.......


In accusing Emma Harrison of being a parasite on society, are not MPs parasites on society? At general elections party candidates present themselves as representatives of a political party that will form the government of our country - yet we all know (well, some of us do) that they will form no more than a willing herd to do their party's bidding and that of their leader who, in turn, will do the bidding of Brussels. In other words they are presenting themselves as being able to do something which they cannot, the end result of which is they become parasites on our society by being paid by society for 'non-performance'. It is also worth remembering that phrase "representatives of a political party"; because that is exactly what they are, even though they would have us believe they are our representatives.


Where any group manages to instill a system that perpetuates their continued existence, it is understandable that they will do everything in their power to maintain that situation, by whatever means. Our politicians may talk about 'localism' and 'devolution of power', but they have no intention of doing anything like that because that would immediately result in their own impotence. Our politicians may talk about 'transparency', but have none; our politicians may talk about the fact that only they know best, but don't; our politicians may talk about the fact that they are the font of all knowledge, but aren't. I am reminded of a quotation by Honore de Balzac, one which I paraphrase: "Politics is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies". If one considers any political ideology, it has but one aim and that is to distance the political class from those they are meant to represent - and it is done by the pretence of making the electorate believe they have power when that power actually resides with the political class by means of 'hidden' central control. As part of that 'control' one only has to look at the number of advisory bodies and quangos that have been created to assist 'government' to control those they are meant to serve and also, in so doing, distance themselves from those they are meant to serve.


The Bruges Group have just published a paper written by George Buchan (do read it) in which, discussing "National Interests and the European Union", he writes:

"Particularly in Europe, however, national interests are very politically expansive and partisan because government itself has become very expansive in size and scope. The narrower the size and scope of government, the less chance national interests have to be politicised and politically manipulated because governmental responsibilities themselves remain narrow. Therefore, the more the size and scope of government goes outside its core responsibilities (and therefore vital national interests), the more opportunities it has to design and create national interests which are not vital to the survival of the state (i.e. secondary), but to the survival of the government in power....."

And that last sentence has been embraced by our political class with enthusiasm as it ensures their own survival.


QM ends his post by mentioning 'tribal voting', something which the political class have furthered by their own underhandedness, epitomized by statements couched in 'politicspeak' where truth has no place. How else can one explain a situation whereby a political party, rejected by the electorate for incompetence, finds itself 5 percentage points in the lead in opinion polls once unpopular policies are announced by their opponents in government? In Parliament politicians talk about 'sovereignty', yet were the average member of the electorate to be asked what that word meant, I suspect most of them could not even spell it let alone define it. Why? Because the political elite don't want to engage in a conversation with the electorate about something that would immediately show that they, the political elite, are but a self-serving collection of egotists and careerists.


When writing "1984" it could be said that George Orwell got his date wrong by 18 years - but hey, at least he got two of the digits correct!

Racism - but what 'defines' racism?

"What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture."
Thomas Sowell

British Freedom links to a video of a young woman, Emma West, having a 'rant'  about multiculturalism, with further comment from Sean Gabb on the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Up Pompeii posts a video entitled "My tram experience in France". The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on what might be termed an injustice of the legal system - or to be fair, a possible future injustice.

Not too sure if anyone in the blogosphere has come up with this query previously. We, as a country, are supposed to have adopted the principle of being a non-racist, diverse people which loves all mankind and therefore with our minds cleansed of all xenophobic thoughts (well that is what the Government think we should be anyway). If we are discriminating between the entry of EU nationals to the UK, about which problem we can do nothing, but putting barriers in the way of those wishing to come here from countries outside the EU; are we not then discriminating on race?

From a post of mine on 28th December 2010:

"Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
David Cameron, “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family” The Observer, Sunday 13 May 2007."

That there is a definite decision by the political elite to impose equality and diversity within this country - one that does appear to 'favour' the immigrant is, without doubt, a fact and in this regard I would refer you to what I wrote on the subject of 'Communitarianism' during October this year.

To return to the subject of Emma West, a number of observations/criticisms can be made, at the forefront of which is her use of such language in the presence of her child and query what example that sets. Against that criticism are the words of Sean Gabb, when he writes:

"Her delivery gives her words an articulacy which is not apparent from a transcript. As you listen to her try not to be distracted by the copious swearing because the woman is a white working class Londoner, or at least part of what Jerome K Jerome called “greater Cockneydom”, and the effing and blinding goes with the territory. She is also speaking in a very stressful situation and allowance has to be made for that. She does not come across as thick. The fact that she has worked as a dental receptionist suggests that she is at least reasonably bright. She is also respectably dressed and there is nothing in her appearance to mark her out as being mentally ill or on the margins of society. Her son (aged between two and three I would judge) is smartly dressed and generally looks well cared for. (Contrary to some press reports, the child looks unfazed throughout )."

Reverting to the post by Up Pompeii, it is appreciated that this occurred in France, yet it could so easily have occurred in this country - and for all we know, probably has. If it has then the punishment meted out to Emma West would no doubt be sorely lacking in the case of this video. Similar cases of different 'justice' are only too prevalent; remember the case of the Muslims who burnt a giant poppy during Remembrance Sunday last year? Also do you recall the fire chief who banned his brigade's annual religious service to mark Remembrance Day in case it offended non-Christians?

It is not possible to throw different religions and races together and expect peace will prevail because the more 'equality' that is imposed, the more one 'group' will seek dominance. This fact is compounded by the purveyors of political correctness - who are the 'drivers' of this equality and diversity 'mantra' - and who, in the final analysis, will not even allow others their judgements. They celebrate 'difference' but they will not allow people to be truly different, to think differently and to say what they think. As a result the indigenous population of this country - and those who have fully assimilated the 'British way of life' - are being changed, or socially engineered.

On the question of 'multiculturalism', an interesting quotation from Angela Merkel; one that is true of religion as it is of race - and is an indictment of the aims of the European Union's wish for ever closer union:

"This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed."

But I digress.........................