Politics is a messy business and that applies to every party. UKIP has suffered from considerable tumult since the Referendum, but which party hasn’t?
Whether someone else should have been leader, and whether they would have proved a better outcome, will now never be known. Water. Bridge.
It seems that would-be heroes and villains have suffered and I am not going to suggest who falls into which category here, as I am not close enough to it.
But there is one thing I can point out. There are only two political parties I have ever voted for in my lifetime – it being the twenty something anniversary of my thirty fifth birthday (plus VAT at the standard rate).
Now both those parties have had female leaders elected by their members. That gives me great pleasure as, confidentially, I have liked females for a very long time. It is in the nature of la différence, actually I think it should be les différences, but assume the French know these things better in their language. But ‘vive’ it, or even them, whatever…
The two UK-wide political parties most associated with fiscal responsibility, accountability, pragmatism and propriety, have been the ones which produced female leaders. You know which parties they are. Unfortunately the older established party was charmed by the artificiality of Blair, precisely at the very point when his own party had lost faith in him. Extraordinarily unfortunate timing by ‘the great and good’, most of whom can rarely be relied upon to think clearly.
In consequence, a lightweight who saw himself as ‘Son of Blair’ came to lead this older party. Precisely in response, the newer of these two parties took off like a rocket – as those wise heads, who were able to learn from the past, groaned in unison: ‘You must be joking! No more!’ Four million of us! We know who we are…
This faux-Blairite chimera still remained ingrained in a lot of folk who tacitly came to the conclusion that it was more important to win, and then manage badly, than it was to demonstrate to the electorate that it was better to run things well and be patient for slightly longer – until the less adaptable types were won round – or died. A better approach would then be appreciated by the electorate at large for as long as a generation. The ‘head-in-the-sand’ types were the ones who wanted a quick fix. A quick fix is not always a good one. This may be illustrated thusly:
Now we can examine the other parties. But first, a safety warning: Please place any glasses, from which you might be drinking, safely on a level surface. OK? Now, these parties? One, the so-called Liberals and the other, the so-called Labour. We can take a break here for a few moments, if you want to laugh uncontrollably…
All back again with nothing spilled? Good, I will resume.
By all means use your wife’s stockings to effect a temporarily repair for a broken fan belt on your car, so that you can drive to the nearest garage for help. But don’t then think the matter is solved and leave that solution in place for the next ten years. That would be typical Labour strategy!
In contrast, the Liberals would simply have given all her stockings away in the first place, so there would be nothing left to implement the above remedy – only a few pairs of smelly broken sandals.
These political parties are designer-built for life’s losers. They both actually used positive discrimination techniques to redress what they saw as an imbalance, but what did they get? A ghastly bunch of self-seeking, mostly ugly, brainless, clueless harridans, the like of which we had not seen before. Hopefully, now, after all their abject failures, this will never be witnessed again, especially by our impressionable children and grandchildren.
It is laughable, isn’t it? Those feckless poseurs, the politically correct, the virtue signallers, the bed wetters, couldn’t even run a whelk stall.
They would happily label us as the ‘far right’, ‘bigots’, ‘racists’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘fascists’, ‘of lower cognitively ability’, ‘vile’, ‘ignorant’, ‘unrefined’, ‘uneducated’, ‘tribalist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘binary thinking’, ‘abhorrent’, the list goes on.
By simply using any one of these words, they think they have won their argument by default, and expect us to respond with instant capitulation: Did you say ‘Islamophobic’? OK, you win!
They have more trigger words than a Smith and Wesson catalogue (oops, gun reference, Trump!) We have not even got to ‘Zionist’ yet and I am sure that ‘untermensch’ will creep in soon, despite its etymological roots.
But there is a very good reason why they use all these trigger words. They have no genuine arguments to employ. All they require is a ‘buzzword’ card.
Why don’t we label them all as ‘far-left’ and have done. ‘Far-left’ starts just before you get to Kenneth Clark. Never trust a man with blue suits and brown shoes. My mother told me this when I was young and she is now 98 – so don’t even think of arguing!
Is it not ironic that the parties, which claim to stand up for women, instead repress them? It is called hypocrisy. Meanwhile, we, their implacable adversaries, actually appoint women who just get on with the job.
Our new battle cry could well be: ‘We have a leader. What do you have?’