Welcome

HOME | ARCHIVE | FACTS | QUOTES | COMMENT | CONTACT

9 August 2006: Some wretched, raving, Islamo-idiot goes round London cursing Israel, calling down Allah's vengeance, taking video footage of the London Eye, Big Ben, and a police station. He is arrested, charged and tried for possessing materials preparatory to committing a terrorist act.

Is this trial likely to produce less terrorism or more terrorism? It's an even bet, in my view. If we want to "our values" to prevail we are going about it in a very odd way.

A couple of years ago, Hazel Blears summed up the case for control orders by telling us that they weren't a punishment for doing something wrong – they were to prevent people doing something wrong. The waves of nausea at ancien regime propositions like this have become more familiar in the intervening period.

In a speech to Demos, Dr "Demento" Reid said just now, "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy our freedoms and values in the long-term".

One of our fundamental values – perhaps the most important  - is stoicism. Over the years, Britain has prided itself on courage under fire, steady nerve, a refusal to panic, or indeed to surrender. The idea that these loony-tunes, jihad-jumping nutcases are a threat to "our freedoms and values" is absurd. Sooner or later they will succeed again with more bombs. Our task is to suffer.  Our task is to take it. As we always have before. 

The Tories are said to be changing their Thatcherite "flaming torch" symbol (it's important to do something about carbon emissions). So, the new icon they are focus-grouping is . . . an oak tree. The values suggested by this are: "strong, rooted, environmental/green, English/British, protective, reaching to the sky and providing shelter".

But considering their progress, their development and their status in the polls, the most obvious thing a Tory oak tree says is: acorns.

At the last general election, the parties spent £43 million. No wonder they're all broke. And even less wonder that their preferred solution is state funding of parties. Is it too much to expect them to live within their means? Is there a single non-political-class voter who wants to see more political advertising, and receive more leaflets through their letterbox (nearly 60 per cent of the spend)? It's bad enough being hectored, bullied and patronised by their wretched advertising agencies . . . but to have to pay for it as well. It's just as well indignation keeps us young.