• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

New Political Party Needed

#1
Peter Hitchens (I know, not everyone's cup of tea) writing in the Mail on Sunday (ditto):

In a critical article of our Police Force, (who I believe are between a rock and a hard place) he lays the blame for the current scourge of feral youths and general crime on the "rich Sixties liberals" running the country, who live in pampered safety miles from the desolation of our inner cities.

Quote: They have been in charge for half a century and they have been proved utterly wrong. Yet they continue to insist they are right and they are not challenged. "We can't do this because of the Human Rights Act. We can't do that because of the Children Act of 1989. We can't do the other because it would be "barbaric" and a return to the "Victorian Age", they trill, from all 3 parties, whenever they are asked to do something about it.
Well, to hell with them all. Stop voting for them and instead build Political parties that care about us. Unquote.

Could it work? Could a new mainstream Political Party really be the answer to the countries woes, or is our Political System so f*cked up, that we will only ever have the Government we deserve?

I for one would vote for a party that re-introduced punishment to fit the crime (including Capital Punishment), seriously reviewed the HR act and took back control of our national borders by introducing a rigid immigration policy, but what are the chances of it happening in our democratic society?
Oh, and one other thing, why should I be labelled a right-wing extremist or racist for asking this question?
 
#4
Capital punishment doesn't work, as has been proved many times over, put 'em to work! Give them something productive and tiring to do...make roads for instance...

Dudders
 
#5
slipperman said:
I for one would vote for a party that re-introduced punishment to fit the crime (including Capital Punishment), seriously reviewed the HR act and took back control of our national borders by introducing a rigid immigration policy, but what are the chances of it happening in our democratic society?
Oh, and one other thing, why should I be labelled a right-wing extremist or racist for asking this question?
If the BNP would drop some of their really too far right views on ethnics already in this country, quite a few of their policies seem quite good and they'd attract a bigger vote in a general election.

I may well, and have voted for the BNP in local elections but I'd not vote for them in a general election.
 
#6
dudders4w said:
Capital punishment doesn't work, as has been proved many times over, put 'em to work! Give them something productive and tiring to do...make roads for instance...

Dudders
Capital punishment does work, it may not be a great deterent but they never re-offend nor cost the taxpayer their upkeep.
 
#7
Well yes, there you have me (note to self, think before posting!) Not that I know the details of it, but if they were to be put to work, wouldn't they be of great benefit to the Exchequer?

Dudders
 
#8
Peter Hitchens said:
They have been in charge for half a century
Hitchens, whenever he becomes over-excited and goes into a spittle-flecked rant, always forgets Thatcher and friends, who ran Britain from 1979-1997. Can that governing class really be described as "rich Sixties liberals"? I thought they represented a lower middle class rebellion, adored by the fussy-mustache-and-blazer-wearing class in golf club houses up and down the land, and opposed in equal measure to Toffs and Trade Unionists?

Hitchens can’t have it both ways. I can see why he’s angry at Cameron. But Thatcher was made in his (Hitchens') image.
 
#9
dudders4w said:
Well yes, there you have me (note to self, think before posting!) Not that I know the details of it, but if they were to be put to work, wouldn't they be of great benefit to the Exchequer?

Dudders
I don't want them to work or be of benefit to the Exchequer, I want them punished by death for their crimes.

(I consider "chavs breathing my air" to be a capital offence BTW)
 
#10
annakey said:
Peter Hitchens said:
They have been in charge for half a century
Hitchens, whenever he becomes over-excited and goes into a spittle-flecked rant, always forgets Thatcher and friends, who ran Britain from 1979-1997. Can that governing class really be described as "rich Sixties liberals"? I thought they represented a lower middle class rebellion, adored by the fussy-mustache-and-blazer-wearing class in golf club houses up and down the land, and opposed in equal measure to Toffs and Trade Unionists?

Hitchens can’t have it both ways. I can see why he’s angry at Cameron. But Thatcher was made in his (Hitchens') image.
In the article, Hitchens recognises that all 3 parties are culpable, therefore he is not exempting Lady Thatch or the Tories from his criticism. My own assessment of his "Sixties Liberals" quote is that it is not only directed at the politicians, but across the many areas of state influence, including the Education system, Local Government, the Church and the Judiciary.
I agree that he can get a little too agitated at times (I like your spittle-flecked description!), but in the main, he comes across as a proud traditionalist who despairs at how this great country appears to have lost the plot in many important areas of public life (a bit like me really).

As for the re-introduction of Capital Punishment, it does not necessarily have to be the bedrock of any new Political Party manifesto, but I personally believe it is a deterrent and should therefore be on the statute book - at the very least it would hopefully make a great number of the mindless thugs currently committing heinous crimes to think twice.
 
#11
slipperman said:
In the article, Hitchens recognises that all 3 parties are culpable, therefore he is not exempting Lady Thatch or the Tories from his criticism.
In that case I don't understand what Hitchins is talking about. Thatcher and friends led a petty bourgeois revolution against both organised labour and traditional Tory establishment. It's one reason Cameron is getting so much stick at the moment: accused by the Tory right of betraying Thatcher's legacy (hugging hoodies, the Eton/Notting Hill connection, tree huggery, refusing to promise big tax cuts, not being tough enough on gays, refusing to promise a big dollop of cash for the army/police etc etc). Is Hitchins saying Thatcher didn't go far enough?
 
#12
I agree with Hitchens on this subject, but as to capital punishment, here are my thoughts on the problem. Capital punishment should only be used where the evidence is concrete and can not be refuted, an example being caught in the act of commiting the crime, there have been foul-ups in this country with new evidence coming forward after many years, but with the advances in forensic science within the past few years, these should not happen.
 
#13
What we really need is a strong British leader, say what you will about Thatcher, but she spoke in favour of this Country and it's people.

Certainly a greater deterrent has to be brought into the justice system.
First stage get rid of this human rights act once and for all.
Remove the holiday camp spirit from prison, if an inmate gets out of line the guards should be able to use reasonable force without having to worry about the consequences.
 
#14
Sheepkiller said:
Remove the holiday camp spirit from prison, if an inmate gets out of line the guards should be able to use reasonable force without having to worry about the consequences.
You're being rather limp-wristed and wishy-washy IMO. Why should prison guards be held back by the concept of 'reasonable force'? Do you want to make work for Hampstead lawyers and Marxist academics? Let the guards get stuck in. And should Polly Toynbee object... tough titty. :x
 
#15
By all means give them a good thrashing, but what I don't want to see is people going over the score and becoming just as bad as the inmates.
One must maintain, or at least try to maintain the moral high ground.
 
#17
Bugly said:
dudders4w said:
Well yes, there you have me (note to self, think before posting!) Not that I know the details of it, but if they were to be put to work, wouldn't they be of great benefit to the Exchequer?

Dudders
I don't want them to work or be of benefit to the Exchequer, I want them punished by death for their crimes.

(I consider "chavs breathing my air" to be a capital offence BTW)
Seconded! :twisted:
 
#18
There's only one problem with forming another political party as far as I can see, it would be made up of politicians because, like it or not, the British aren't a very political nation as can be seen by the turnout at elections. I hold my hand up here as where I live if Labour put a monkey up he's get voted in and several times I've nbeen too disheartened to bother going to vote. (Especially if my arthritis has been playing up)
 
#19
Is it a new political party or a complete reform of our parliament that is required? Why are we still coming to the conclusion that a FULL democratic process is working? Why do we incorporate aspects of religion into government still? Why is it when just over 61% of the voting population turnout we call that satisfactory?

Another party will still require financial backing, and need to have the testicular fortitude to see off the big corporations that pour the money into the parties, if the methods and style of this new and powerful party is anything to go by?

Another party is still a bunch of politicians by any other name. Reform of the house is what is required.

Ooooh, I am happier now.
 
#20
imo...

Any ex-extremist (anarcho-commie in my case) should be able to tell you that the vast majority of people don't want what they consider to be extremism. People are basically tribal and unconsciously always try to move close to what they think is the tribal consensus. It's all about who/what creates that consensus or middle-ground.

Forty-ish years ago that consensus in the UK was mostly created by the church and the mostly conservative press. With the invention and extension of the great hypnotiser in the sky (television), the number one force for deciding what the middle ground is, is TV. In the UK that means the BBC. The left-liberal consensus at the BBC subconsciously becomes the "middle ground" even though it isn't.

No political party, new or otherwise, can get round that unless there is a crisis--like the winter of discontent which thrust Thatcher into power, "despite" the weight of the BBC. The internet may be changing this as people start connecting and getting their opinions online. New Labour has got away with so much purely because the people who dominate the BBC have pretty much the same political agenda as the guppymint (apart from the US alliance).

If the Tories won't even mention things like immigration, even when it's getting to be the number one concern of the voters, that will tell you something about the power of the "percieved middle ground" created by the BBC. Unless the BBC is broken up and a number of channels created with varying political agendas then the "percieved middle ground" will remain the same and new labour will keep winning.

Only a crisis like, far more and more successful terrorist attacks, or far more middle class people being killed by street gangs, will force the BBC types to reconsider their attitude to defence, crime and immigration.

As annoyingly obviously biased as Fox news is, the UK needs something like that. Or wait until things have got so bad we reach crisis point.

imo again...
 

Latest Threads