Mendacious Hain

Peter Hain exhibits the characteristics - prominent in members, of which he is one, belonging to the second-oldest profession - of untruths, downright lies and bigoted political views.

On his website is a speech, given to the Welsh Conference earlier this month,he said:

"Chris Ruane’s Tory opponent in the Vale of Clwyd, Matt Wright, has been revealed as one of just two Tory Candidates around the UK to sign up to the aims of the extreme right-wing “Albion Alliance”, a dubious organisation whose Chief organiser, John Higham, has posted on his own blog this highly offensive diatribe against Muslims: “In the end, those mosques will no doubt come down and the irritating, piercing chanting will cease but I do hope it can be done with an absolute minimum of bloodshed." 

A few points need bringing to Hain's attention: First, by the time Hain made this speech Matt Wright had withdrawn his support of the aims proposed by the Albion Alliance. Second, the Albion Alliance is not a right-wing, dubious organisation and had Hain taken the trouble to actually view their website he would have seen that in their first press release the Albion Alliance stated: "As a campaign group we remain neutral as to the outcome of any referendum, but our primary interest is in rebuilding the democratic deficit which has been prevalent over the past 40 years with regards to British interests and the EU." Third, 'John' Higham is not the chief organiser of the Albion Alliance, however a James Higham does exist, something which had Hain bothered to even attempt some basic research he would have discovered. Fourth, the views expressed by James Higham were on his own blog and as such were his own personal views. For Hain to suggest that anyone who has views/opinions that differ from his can be classified as 'right-wing' is ridiculous in the extreme - or is the only acceptable view that of the Gospel according to Hain? Since when did God endow Hain with a thought process that us mere mortals were not given? 

In his speech to the Welsh Conference Peter Hain also said: "A choice in the coming election for every parent who drops their child off at school, nervous at what the future will hold. A choice for every public sector worker afraid of savage Tory cuts, a choice for every business person struggling to survive, a choice for every family worried about paying their mortgage in an age of insecurity… a choice for every young person wanting a job, a choice for every pensioner, trying to make ends meet." That 'choice' Hain mentions is a 'choice' which has to be made on a number of matters, one of which is the basic question of who governs our country. It is also a 'choice' which has to be made about whether to re-elect a government whose view of 'democracy' is questionable on many fronts. Or is Hain also of the opinion that the only choice that is permitted is that of 'Hainism'? By 'rubbishing' the Abion Alliance, Hain is joining so many of his kind in refusing to discuss certain 'choices' we, the people, should be allowed to make - they are, in effect, imposing a form of censorship on those that elect them and pay for their lifestyles.

Peter Hain is a prime example of what is wrong with the present form of democracy that exists in Britain today. He and his fellow politicians of all three main parties pontificate and lecture the people of Britain about choice, democracy and representation of their constitutients without showing the slightest understanding of what should be involved. There are, thankfully, a few politicians who do show an understanding of those three core elements required in politics and one can single out politicians like Hannan, Carswell, Hollobone and Philip Davies although an argument can me made that they are in the wrong party  but I digress.

With the Liberal Democrats today unveiling their campaign slogan it is striking that all three main parties are promising change, but one has to ask: change from what? As has been stated previously on this blog, their policies are so similar the only difference is the means by which all three propose reaching the same goal. They have done their utmost to 'close down' any debate on any subject that they don't wish to discuss, or are unable to present a convincing argument against. They practise a form of censorship that Stalin would have been proud and as such invite all the criticism that is levied against them.

For all three main political parties - and regretfully, it may take some time - there will be change in Britain and it will come through what can only be termed 'revolution'. Whether that 'revolution' will be peaceful or bloody is in the hands of the present incumbents of our political system.

Update: Courtesy of Ian Parker-Joseph who points me to this post by Obo: "In the meantime, Russia’s main television channel is flying into Manchester to interview Nick Hogan as part of a special investigation* into the totalitarian regime that they see emerging in Europe – Oh! The irony! Post Perestroika Russia sees Britain as an oppressive regime! Was it only yesterday that we were lecturing them on Freedom?"