You Can’t Separate Politics and Morals.
Thursday, May 11-2006.
TONY BLAIR’S Cabinet
reshuffle is predictably already running into difficulties. Ruth Kelly, who has
taken over John Prescott’s several ministerial responsibilities, is being
attacked on two fronts.
On the one hand, it is pointed out that her criticism of
middle-class families who resist government plans to build new homes sits unhappily
with her opposition to a string of new housing developments in her own
Local Government Minister, Ms Kelly is now in charge of planning regulations.
At the same time, she is attracting even greater flak from
the gay lobby. For reasons difficult to fathom, in addition to her local
government portfolio she is also described as Equality Minister. This means
that she is supposed to ensure that we all have equal rights.
Because she is a member of Opus Dei, a Roman Catholic
movement that has explicitly criticised homosexual liaisons, it is suggested
that she is unlikely to give homosexuals a fair crack of the whip.
There is little doubt that Ms Kelly accepts the opus Dei
line on homosexuality. When asked whether it is a sin, she has refused to give
a straight answer. In the Commons, she
has missed a total of 12 votes on homosexuality since 1997.
In May 2002, she voted for an amendment to a Bill that
would have allowed unmarried heterosexuals couples to adopt while excluding
Millions of people will be secretly, or not so secretly in
agreement with Ms Kelly’s views. Until 40 or 50 years ago, they would have been
held by the vast majority. The Gay lobby is too eager to paint her as an
BUT what concerns me are
not the rights or wrongs of her views BUT her defence of them. On Radio Five
Live two days ago, she again refused to say whether she considered
homosexuality a sin. This is what she
‘I don’t think its right
for politicians to start making moral judgments about people…What I think the
question is, is what are my political views…As a politician I think everyone
should be free from discrimination.
IN OTHER WORDS, Ms Kelly
is specifically separating politics from morals. She has her moral views, and
she has her political ones. Morally, it
is pretty clear she is opposed to homosexuality. She could hardly not be, given
the position of Opus Dei, indeed of current Roman Catholic Church teaching.
According to Jack Valero, a spokesman for Opus Dei in Britain:
‘Homosexuality is a
condition that people can’t help, but the homosexual act is sinful.’
YET while holding this
moral view Ms Kelly also says that she believes homosexuals should enjoy equal
does she think this?
The likely answer is because it is a political necessity
for her to do so if she is to retain HIGH OFFICE.
believes one thing; she then acts in a way at odds with that belief.
Many of us have conflicting views in our minds at the same
time, or behave in a manner that is at variance with our beliefs. It is
certainly common for people who have moral misgivings about homosexuality to
treat individual homosexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals.
This is partly a question of politeness and partly a matter
of social survival. We could hardly get by in life if we were to get on our
moral high horse every time we encountered people of whose behaviour we might
But what might be forgivable, or at least understandable,
in our own relations with others cannot be so easily excused in a high
politician who wields great power.
A minister who believes that morality and politics are
separate and mutually exclusive activities is liable to act in a bad and
possibly dangerous way. At its most extreme, this sort of dislocation enabled a
man like Albert Speer, who certainly had a moral sense, to condone or ignore
the barbarities of the Nazi regime in which he was a senior minister.
an admittedly far less dramatic way, isn’t this divorce of the moral from the
political one of the defining features of New Labour?
Blair presents himself as a highly moral, Christian person whose well-thumbed
copy of the New Testament [let alone the Koran] is never far from his
side. YET he displays a love of wealth
that is hardly a central tenet of Christian belief; and, as this country has
learnt to its cost over Iraq, he has a very contingent attitude to TRUTH.
MORALITY, for Blair and Ruth Kelly, is conveniently a
private affair. In the harsh light of political reality, both of them are ready
to disregard their moral precepts or, most spectacularly in the case of Mr
Blair, to act counter to them while still - preposterously- claiming the MORAL
OF COURSE, I do not say that politics is only a matter of
MORALITY, only that the two should not be treated as though they have nothing
to do with each other.
There are many humdrum political issues, which seem far
removed from moral concerns:
Ms Kelly’s belief that we should build more houses in the
[already] overcrowded South East cannot be said to be more or less moral than
the opposing view.
Other issues more obviously engage our moral values.
there be a Death Penalty?
we alter the Abortion Laws?
the re-distribution of Wealth desirable?
is War justified?
In all these cases there is scope for equally moral people
to disagree, or even to arrive at opposite conclusions. What we can ask of OUR
politicians, though, is that when they confront these issues they should do so
in a way that is consistent with THEIR sense of MORALITY.
If Me Blair had done this, he would NOT have taken us to
WAR over IRAQ on a massive LIE, or worshipped at the shrine of the appalling Silvio
And it is surely an indication of some sort of MORAL lapse
in Ms Kelly for her to propose a policy, namely the relaxation of building
controls and the building of more houses, after objecting to similar
developments near her own home on many previous occasions, the last as recently
as April 2004.
We are entitled to change our minds, but when a minister so
suddenly revokes her previous approach, we are bound to suspect her of acting
out of low political motives.
she is right or wrong about homosexuality is not the issue.
Ms Kelly believes that homosexual acts are wrong. She therefore presumably believes that
homosexuals CANNOT enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. And YET she is required in her new office to
ensure THAT THEY DO SO.
This suggests to me either that Ruth Kelly is rather
stupid, which in view of her high intellectual attainments may seem an unlikely
theory. OR, more plausible, she is potentially dangerous, and
characteristically Blairite, sort of hypocrite, holding to one set of beliefs
while she gaily - no pun intended- contradicts them in the pursuit of power.
100 years ago a Prime Minister of England - William Ewart Gladstone was acclaimed
stance, which were ingrained into his character. The following words are from
John Morley’s Life of Gladstone.
‘He was one of the three
statesmen in the House of Commons of his generation who had a gift of large and
spacious conception of the place and power of England in the world, and of the
policies by which she could maintain it. Cobden and Disraeli were the other two’.
On his day after his
death, in each of the two Houses the leader made the motion, identical in
language in both cases save the final words about the financial provision in
the resolution of the Commons: -
That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty praying
that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains
of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be interred at the public charge, and
that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster,
with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment and of
the high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted
labours in parliament and in great offices of state, and to assure her Majesty
that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
The language of the
movers was worthy of the British parliament at its best, worthy of the station
of those who used it, and worthy of the figure commemorated. Lord Salisbury was
thought by most to go nearest to the core of solemnity: -
What is the cause of this unanimous feel? Of course, he had
qualities that distinguished him from other men; and you may say that it was
his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, and
the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and convictions of
But these things, which explain the attachment, the adoration
of those whose ideas he represented, would not explain why it is that
sentiments almost fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas were not
carried by his policy.
My Lords, I do not see the reason is to be found in
anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and
controversial questions of the policy of the day. They had nothing to do with it.
Whether he was right or whether he was wrong, in all
measures, or in most of the measures which he proposed - those are matters of
which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate
here; they are really remitted to the judgment of future generations, who will
securely judge from experience what we can only decide by forecast.
It was on account of considerations more common to the
masses of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any
controversial questions of policy that men recognised in him a man guided -
whether under mistaken impressions or not, it matters not - but guided in all
the steps he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal.
What he sought were the attainments of great ideals, and
whether they were based on sound convictions or not, they could have issued
from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he
is honoured by his countrymen, because through so many years, across so many
vicissitudes and conflicts, they had recognised this one characteristic of his action, which never
ceased to be felt.
He will leave behind him, especially to those who have
followed with deep interest the history of the later years - I might almost say
the later months of his life -he will leave behind him the memory of a great
Set up necessarily on high - the sight of his character,
his motives, and his intentions would strike the entire world. They will have left
a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social
thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be remembered not so
much for causes in which he was engaged or the political projects which he
favoured, but as a great example, to which history hardly furnishes a parallel,
of a great
Feb 18 -1897- Returns to London from Cannes
Feb 22- Goes to Bournemouth
March 22- Death of Mr Gladstone
March 26, 27- Lying in State in Westminster Hall
March 28 -Burial in Westminster Abbey.
* * *
[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in
[Latest Addition - June07]
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
THE QUESTION THAT THE
VOTER MUST ANSWER
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE
CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
Home Rule for
[All underlined words have a separate
Elections in the British One Party State
If you vote Conservative, Labour, Lib-Dem, UKIP or
the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship. All five party
leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote doesn't make a
difference - all these five parties have the same policies: the EU's
most senior politicians in the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour
parties, including Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Cameron, William
Hague, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, Brown, David and Ed Milliband, Ed
Balls, Peter Mandleson are Bilderbergers, the 140 strong band of
ultra senior Freemasons who are bribed by the EU to build the EU
No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever be
allowed to hold public office.
UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is
riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the
BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick
Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong
Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers
of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to
clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU
For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF
INTEND TO JOIN THEM TAKE NOTE OF THE
THE EDP HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF THE MANAGEMENT
AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP FOR SOME TIME NOW
AS IS SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF BULLETINS OVER
THE PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE HAVE CRITICISED
THEIR LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE AS THEY FAILED
TO MOTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE
DETERMINED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN WHICH
WOULD HAVE MADE THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE BUT
THEY HAD NO WORRY BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR OWN
PERSONS IN CHARGE AT THE TOP OF THE
ORGANISATION. THIS FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN
LACKING AND WE CAN CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN
A MARCH WAS CANCELLED - AND WATCH THE FARCE
WHEN CANDLES WERE HELD AND THOUSANDS OF
LETTERS SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW WHERE TO
DISPOSES OF THEM -AND ALL TO NO AVAIL. IF
YOU ARE A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU HAVE BEEN
BETRAYED BY YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME APPEAR
ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN UNDER
CLOSE SPOTLIGHT RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE TO
AN ISRAELI SECURITY FIRM DETAILS ON OUR
WEBSITE . IRONICALLY IT WAS A CHANCE LOOK
ON THE INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO TO COME
UPON THAT SITE WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO THE
ILLUMINATI. THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DETAILS OF
THE BILDERBERGERS ON OUR SITE A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO DO MORE RESEARCH- WE
ALL HAVE TO LEARN. THE FAILURE OF UKIP WE
HAVE SUSPECTED FOR MANY YEARS THAT MANY
AT THE TOP OF THEIR ORGANISATION MIGHT BE
UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF THE ILLUMINATI. IT IS
A FAVOURITE TRICK OF THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY
PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT THE OUTSET WHATEVER
ITS POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM TO PUT THEIR
OWN PEOPLE IN TO CONTROL ITS POLICES AS THEY
BEHIND THE SCENES SUPPLY THE VITAL FINANCIAL
Our intention is not to benefit from this
disaster as since the 1999 European Election
we have NOT! accepted a DONATION! from
ANYONE! and we closed membership also
because we did not wish to split the vote
for UKIP but have stated in the past that we
would contest another election if it was
ever necessary to enter into the affray
again and with the reputation of UKIP under
scrutiny we will keep our options OPEN! As
we mentioned some time ago we have been
almost two decades on the campaign trail to
free our once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE
of ENGLAND from the SATANIC EU and those who
have for centuries have planned for an EVIL
ONE-WORLD CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT and
EXTERMINATE! at least 5 BILLION of the
WORLD'S POPULATION and therefore if we are
right about those mentioned above they are
not only TRAITORS to their COUNTRY but also
a THREAT to WORLD PEACE. However, of late,
matters have NOT! been going well for the
ILLUMINATI as you will observe BELOW.
WHAT A WAY TO WIN A WAR
PATRIOT or TRAITOR
to HIS COUNTRY
ADDED - MAY-2012