Political quotas
Bookworm on Nov 16 2008 at 12:01 am | Filed under: Britain, England
The hell with democracy. In post-Blairite England, the Labour government is now demanding that gays be represented in parliament in numbers proportionate to their numbers amongst the general public:
Controversial Government backed plans for a massive increase in the number of gay MPs are being opposed by Commons Speaker Michael Martin, it was revealed last night.
Ministers are likely to support a demand by gay-rights campaigners for a target of electing 39 openly gay MPs – nearly four times the present number.
The target is based on an official estimate that six per cent of Britain is gay and is part of a Parliamentary shake-up by Commons Leader Harriet Harman to make MPs ‘more representative’.
My feeling is that if the British want to use their democratic rights to elect only gay people to Parliament — fine. What I find appalling is that the government is essentially taking away that democratic right by demanding that only certain demographics can fill parliamentary seats.
You can bet your bottom dollar that, at the rate England is going, the next step will be that government will announce that Parliament must be filled with X number of transgendered MPs, X number of Muslims MPs, X number of Catholic MPs, X number of vegetarian MPs, X number of Anglican MPs (you remember that faith in England, don’t you?), etc.. After that, it’s an easy step for the government to announce that, because voters are being obstreperous about sticking to those legislative guidelines, thereby depriving gays, Muslims, Catholics, vegetarians, etc., of their designated proportional rights, the government will take over the task of finding appropriate representatives from the designated groups to fill parliamentary seats.
And just like that, the noble experiment of democracy, one that traces its roots back hundreds of years in England, will be gone.
Related posts:
- Czechoslovakia makes a slightly right turn
- Nattering nabobs of complete ignorance
- England and its immigrants
Email This Post To A Friend
29 Responses to “Political quotas”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
London
I wander thro’ each charter’d street,
Near where the charter’d Thames does flow,
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear.
How the chimney-sweeper’s cry
Every black’ning church appals;
And the hapless soldier’s sigh
Runs in blood down palace walls.
But most thro’ midnight streets I hear
How the youthful harlot’s curse
Blasts the new-born infant’s tear,
And blights with plagues the marriage hearse.
-William Blake
Very apt, isn’t it, Book?
And just like that, the noble experiment of democracy, one that traces its roots back hundreds of years in England, will be gone.
They’ll be going back to aristocracy and feudalism, the true roots of Britain and the Celtic tribes.
Democracy was a blip on the radar, Book, and it is now fading so that Britain can adopt the traditions they had before the Roman Empire came on the scene.
I would say, Y, that it’s a case of people going to their default roots, except for the fact that this change is being driven by people who don’t have ancient roots in British soil. It’s all very strange….
There will be a remnant in Britain that will resist. It will take heart from Churchill’s stirring words in June 1940:
“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
The only rub, I fear, is that the New World is now half lost. Effete half-men like Obama and his ilk are laughing as they piss on it, even as we speak.
I’ve seen it before, Book. Or at least read about the consequences of the aftermath.
Both the Cuban Revolution and the Iranian revolution were supported by Leftist intellectuals, fake liberal useful idiots, and hard core true believers mixed in with people like Che (opportunists and mass murderers looking for a justification to go on a rampage).
Because representative republics are extremely hard to break apart (much harder to divide and conquer than nations like feudalist France for example), you need a special coalition of the willing, Book.
This special coalition usually takes the form of Leftist revolutionaries to provide the cannon fodder and grassroots organization while you have Leftist intellectuals creating the “moderate” front by appealing to the middle class, the mainstream, and the international community in words, articles, and other high falutin efforts. Then there are the college students (like in the Iranian revolution) that have no idea what the hell they are doing and are just fake liberal cannon fodder for the Ches, the Castros, and the Khomeinis. Once the Revolution is over and the status quo power is knocked down, then the purges begin.
However, before that happens, Book, what you will see is exactly what you see in Britain. Representatives and products of a representative republic based upon a separation of church and law joining and working with religious fundamentalists, Marxist revolutionaries, or mass murderers.
The intellectuals and idealistic students believe that they will be the ones that will get a slice of the pie, Book. The capitalists or greedy bastos and corrupt oligarchs (British Labor MPs) believe that they will get to keep their status in the “new arrangement”.
But guess what really happens, Book, to such tools once their uses are over and done for.
except for the fact that this change is being driven by people who don’t have ancient roots in British soil.
Foreigners using front men from inside the society of the targeted nation or culture is something humanity has been doing probably since we discovered fire. Well, certainly after we started trading across tribes and settlements.
Get a couple of Leftists, promise them that Sharia law is only going to do good things for the cause of the Left, and wallah, Book. You have your pretext and you have your Leftist intellectual allies that will make your cause look ‘moderate’ and ‘mainstream’. Of course, once you get real power and are able to discard your tools, you won’t ever need the fiction of being a revolution designed to further “civil liberties” ever again.
Here’s a little test I’d like your response on, Book, and any others here interested.
You have to tell me which poem best fits the Democrats.
***********
So… which one of Blake’s poems best fits the Democrats? Blake’s “The Tyger”, which symbolizes the devil and lucifer, beautiful and crafty yet ultimately dangerous and self-destructive? Or Blake’s “Infant Sorrow”?
This applies to Britain as well, since, after all, Blake was a British poet.
Book, Britain is no longer a Democracy and the Parliament today largely consists of poseurs.
Already, 80% of lawmaking comes mandated from Brussels and, when the Lisbon Treaty (or whatever it will be called when this happens) is finally approved, the Parliament will de facto cease to exist. Today, Britain’s governing bodies are reduced to trying to reaffirm their raison d’etre by meddling into all details of individual citizen’s lives, as you have so amply demonstrated on this blog, as they become less and less able to address the very real problems in British society.
What is happening in Britain is a sad, pathetic joke. We will see the beginnings of the same process happen here if and when Obama and his cohorts submit the U.S. to “international law” (a non-sequitur if there ever was one) on the International Criminal Court, treaty of the oceans, global climate changes, etc.
You can have individual liberty and equality of opportunity…
Or you can have “fairness” for groups via quotas, and equality of results.
It’s no accident that as individual liberty is abandoned, quotas sprout like weeds in national policy.
Also note that as the abandonment of individual responsibility, the existence of government bailouts for failed (and clamoring) groups comes on the rise.
It’s all perfectly natural, perfectly understandable, and perfectly avoidable by the wise. When did we Americans, on the whole, become such hopelessly blind, blithering IDIOTS?
Democracy is just too hard. So many decisions. So much personal responsibility. So much disappointment. Inferior intellects mucking about with issues that only elites can understand. So hard. Let’s try something different.
Why do I not see much concern coming from the British about what is happening in their country?
I know Melanie Phillips has done yeoman’s work at sounding the alarm but other than that, I just don’t see anything.
Maybe there are expressions of concern and people actually doing something to halt their slide into the abyss and I’m just not aware of it?
>>Why do I not see much concern coming from the British about what is happening in their country?>>
Like Oldflyer says…some people find that “Democracy is just too hard”.
There were immigrants who fled from the Soviet Union to the United States, and who returned there after several years, unable to make it in the west without the support systems of the communist system. It was too hard.
Look at all the young people who yell and scream at their parents for adult privileges and rights, and then return to their parents’ homes when they can’t afford both housing and all the goodies that they had while living under their parents’ roofs…
Suek, I fear that under a Liberal /Left administration (motto: “Punish Success, Reward Failure, Take 33% off the Top”), we’ll all end up as children, or as those 40+ losers still living at home with Mom.
If you go to Western Europe today (esp. Great Britain), you will see large swaths of infantilized humanity totally dysfunctional and dependent on the dole. Come to think of it, that describes a significant portion of Obama’s Chicago constituency.
I fear that a growing segment of our country no longer wants to be free. They want someone to take care of them and they actually believe that those same people that run the Dept. of Motor Vehicles will do that for them.
suek -
I think humans have a need to have support systems or “to be taken care of” in some sort of capacity.
But for a long time, that need was filled by various types of family structures.
Now families are in shambles. There are way too many single women trying to raise children by themselves. Families are spread far apart and while they may love each other, they are not necessarily there to provide physical support.
So, I think, the stage is set for people to turn to other forms of support – like government.
Deana
P.S. Along with many other people, I think a lot of our problems are due to the “devaluation” of man in society. Men no longer are called upon to fill the role they were destined to fill. Other forces rush in to fill the vacuum. This has been discussed at length before but it is something that has been on my mind recently.
One other thing has been on my mind: leftists always seem to assume that human beings can advance or be perfected. Conservatives know that people are capable of changing their beliefs and some behaviors based on those new beliefs but understand implicitly that human beings today are prone to the same tendencies and weaknesses that have plagued mankind from the beginning of time.
But because leftists truly believe that human beings can be improved, they are ceaseless in their efforts to create these government-based structures and societal forces that are really quite intrusive and ultimately deadly to human liberty.
Courtesy of suek, please read this.
Link
One of the reasons Sadr city and those environs supported Al Sadr was because Sadr was there providing for them while we were sitting on our heels outside having to ask Sadr for permissions on such things as wiping our arse.
This allowed Sadr to consolidate power through bribery in the cities, forcing the denizens of the cities to join his militias and work for him or otherwise be left without the means to live or survive.
Sadr sealed the deal then by creating warfare between the Sunnis and Shia. The more the people in Sadr city were killed by death squads, and it doesn’t even matter where they came from so long as they believe the Sunnis were responsible, the more power Sadr held in his promise to “protect” the people of Sadr city.
This is why the Left said Sadr was providing “welfare” like Hizbollah was and how this is a “good thing” which meant we had to deal with him the same way we deal with the Kurds. A more dumb arse idea could not be forwarded and still be alive. That’s Leftist thirst for blood for ya.
Breaking the stranglehood of Sadr on cities is the same goal the GOP must accomplish in America. Cities like Chicago and LA are beset by gangs and crime and who do they have for help? The Democrats. Democrats who have excluded the GOP and made the denizens of cities afraid of both the GOP and the gangs, thereby ensuring that they will support only the Democrats.
This is not an existence we should, in good conscience, allow the Left and the Democrats to keep on perpetuating. Our duty to classical liberal values and philosophies require that we free such people from tyrannical regimes and terrorist organizations.
And if you aren’t a classical liberal, then there’s the political power of pushing the Democrats out of American cities as an incentive.
P.S. Along with many other people, I think a lot of our problems are due to the “devaluation” of man in society. Men no longer are called upon to fill the role they were destined to fill. Other forces rush in to fill the vacuum. This has been discussed at length before but it is something that has been on my mind recently.
Suek’s comment over at C4 on this subject is worth a read, Deana.
Link
Book,
Hi. First time posting. Absolutely love your site. Came here on a link from neo-neocon and have never looked back.
I am a US expat who has lived in the UK for 23 years now (met someone, doncha know!), and I have great faith in the “bloody-mindedness” of the voters in Britain. Harriet Harperson has made herself into a figure of fun over here and if she says there will be more gay MPs I can almost certainly guarantee that the “Great British Public” will blow raspberries at her and elect whom they “jolly well want” to Parliament.
I think that NuLabour might consider themselves, as a result of her comments, to be obliged to offer up many more openly gay candidates for Parliament, but the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are not similarly constrained by the ravings of this government minister.
Bottom line – thankfully, the people can still have a say in such matters, and hopeanchangefully they will let NuLab know, emphatically, what they think of this idea.
Thanks for all your thoughtful posts – it helps to read someone else who has to live in the belly of the liberal beast.
>>So, I think, the stage is set for people to turn to other forms of support – like government.>>
The government as “Pater familias”? Funny…somehow though I think you’re right, at the same time I think the Libs would be offended that it wasn’t “Mater familias”…!
Y –
what an interesting site!
Hopechangefully??!?!?
What a fabulous word! We should start using that – perhaps it will get placed into Webster’s.
Glad you are here, RLaker.
Deana
To RLaker: I hope and pray that you are correct!! We love England, but watching the British people fail to defend their culture, their norms, and their liberties, is painful. There are parts of Britain we’re simply afraid to visit anymore. I will be glad if the British people rise up and reaffirm their liberty…..they’d better start moving, or they’ll be a Muslim state before very long.
To Deana: Thomas Sowell calls the difference in perspective between the left and the right the difference between the “unconstrained vision” that we can achieve a form of utopia because people are basically good and just need to be given the proper environment, and the “constrained vision” that sees people as “fallen” and we have to arrange things to protect citizens against each other. Or something like that — go see him explain it himself at: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/33647984.html
Earl –
I adore Dr. Sowell. If I were Queen of the World (one of my little fantasies), I would make him President for life or until the rest of America understands that what he says is as close to political and economic gospel as can exist on earth.
Deana
Deanna certainly is on target. In the past, family and religion filled much of the support needs.
The problem of course is that while families, and certainly many religions, can be autocratic, the individual has the option to leave them. But, as their power and influence wane, we must be very alert that it is not replaced by the power of the state; because the state cannot be escaped. (Preaching to the choir here I know).
Conservatives must stand firm on principles. One of the important ones is empowering traditional support systems in any way that we can.
Interestingly, while technological advances have tended to separate us physically, they also provide a means to still maintain real-time communication and strong emotional ties. I certainly experience this with children and grandchildren on the opposite coast. Emotional closeness and support within families can be sustained despite our mobile lifestyle; it is cultural obstacles that tend to drive us apart.
Oops, I started editing and lost a thought. Despite the sneers of some sophisticates, the issues of character and “family values” truly are significant when evaluating politicians. IMO.
Hey, suek, I think you’ll like this video.
http://www.shieldamerica.org/
Deana, have you seen Kay Hymowitz’s article at City Journal on that topic?
Quisp –
No. I had not. I just read it. What an interesting piece!
I would agree with Hymowitz. The dating scene is utterly chaotic. I think it is because absolutely anything is possible. There are no boundaries and the expectations of the man and woman can be similar or dramatically different.
It’s a minefield.
I feel bad for men right now. I don’t think they know how they are supposed to act. If they are “traditional,” they risk being considered dinosaurs, neanderthals, and “out of touch.” Metrosexualism is not an option for a lot of these men (and I think we can all give a hearty “thank God” for that!). Even if men are comfortable with who they are, they never know what the woman who they are interested in wants. Sometimes she doesn’t either.
It makes me think that in spite of its imperfections, the old way was a little easier.
Deana
There’s a lot to be said for having a template on which to rely in fraught situations. The old dating rulings ensured that people knew what to do. For the iconoclasts it was a straight jacket, but for the vast middle, it was a comforting thing that provided maximum security and minimum risk.
Re the Hymowitz article…
Very well perceived and written article….I have a young friend to send it to!
I seem to remember that when I was young, the concept was that religion was a “woman’s” thing…that women used religion to control men. I think now that that was entirely wrong – _men_ “invented” religion (at least as it pertains to sexual behavior) to control _men_. The feminist movement was supposed to allow women to achieve equality, and stop the “sex objects” approach of men to women. Equality has been achieved, I think, at least as much as individuals want…but the sex objects concept???? Sheesh. At least pre-feminist movement, women as sex objects were on a pedestal…now the pedestal is gone, but the viewpoint is not. Equality is good when you’re reaching _up_, not so great when the ideal is -down-.
Y…re the Shield article…
Yes it’s interesting and scarey. I’ve thought about future attacks by the terrorists, and none of them – I think – would affect the entire country in the same way. If an attack was radioactive waste, nuclear bomb, biological contamination…they’d all take a terrible toll, but would most likely affect a relatively small physical space, or trigger a response that would be fairly protective of most people. The EMP, however, would take us back to the days of the old west, in effect. We don’t even think about our infrastructure and how it facilitates our ease of living. One of the things that struck me about the first year in Iraq was the realization that one of the reasons they couldn’t keep an army going was that they couldn’t pay them without shipping actual money in a protected transport which had to be on an irregular schedule to foil thieves – the soldiers couldn’t get the money to their families unless they took it to them themselves. No national bank system. No use of checks to transfer funds. Nothing but hand carry, and that was dangerous. No food in the cities – in their case, the roads were in terrible shape and subject to bombs that might go off. In our case, it would be that cars and trucks – and trains – wouldn’t run. No food in the cities?? talk about riot and chaos! Police couldn’t coordinate etc…anything you think of, we probably use a means of transportation or communication that just wouldn’t work.
I don’t know whether such an attack is feasible – that’s part of the fear…not knowing enough – but if it is, it would be incredibly destructive to our infrastructure, and, I suspect, would result in chaos like we’ve never seen from the population.
I always enjoyed “The Taming of the Shrew”.
I think he was on to something.