Friday, February 08, 2008
Interview: Nile Gardiner
Earlier today I met Nile Gardiner, who is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. Nile is British but has worked in Washington for five years. You'll often see him talking about UK/US relations on the BBC or Sky. I recorded a seven minute chat with him about the US elections, the decline of neo conservatism and his work at Heritage. To watch it click on the box on the right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
OT - Iain, don't know (but can guess) how you gatecrashed yesterday's mad-dog conservative jamboree (aka CPAC meeting).
But last night I received a personal invite (via robocall) to attend a "meet and greet" with Senator McCain this evening at the Westin Hotel in Seattle.
Am still trying to figure out, how I got on THAT list!
BTW you're reportage from CPAC was very interesting, perhaps the best thing you've posted during your current US invasion.
Nice interview. Articulate fellow - although I honestly believe I was the first - around three weeks ago - to note that Obama was totally Blairesque. Even down to his empty slogans. Blair said, "Forward. Not back." Duh. Obama says, "Change you can believe in." Identical vacuity posing as an agenda.
Off topic.
I've been reading Peter Oborne's 'The Triumph of the Politica Class'. It is, for those have not yet read it, a profoundly depressing book.
What comes out of it is that no change is going to happen via the electoral system, by reason of the fact that there is nobody to vote for that is not already tainted with corruption, or would like to be.
It is quite clear to me that something drastic needs to happen, to recapture a real public 19th Century service ethic from the political class.
We need another Cromwell to get rid of these self-seeking self-interested self-agrandising self enriching cunts.
My solution? The Queen should suspend Parliament. Pro-tem the government should be trusted to the Civil Service for a 1 year period.
New elections would be held, and the only people elegible to stand would be those who could demonstrate a long (5 year) period of employment in the private sector or the armed forces. No lawyers, PR hacks, social workers, polytechnic lecturers, or journalists. Just real people with proper experience of the workplace.
The current situation is absolutely unsustainable. It is incapable of reforming itself. Something drastic has to be done, and the only person with the experience, knowledge and public confidence to do the job is Her Majesty the Queen. It is, after all, her job. She is Head of State. What else does she do that justifies her position? She needs to get on the case. If she doesn't do anything, JUST WHAT IS SHE FOR?
Rush Is Right - A strong and well-argued post with but one weak point: The Queen.
Look back to the Blair years, with offence after offence against liberty and the gagging of the press and she did precisely nothing. Rien. Nada. Carried on reading his absurd speeches in the Houses of Parliament, allowed him to take an axe to our ancient liberties, allowed him to futz about with our ancient, effective House of Lords ... and the lady never said 'nay'.
I've lost all sense of purpose in the Queen, frankly, and regard her as a self-serving coward. Yes, she's 81 now, but she was around 70 when blair and his minions slithered in to wreck our Constitution and Bill of Rights and House of Lords.
I don't know what went wrong, but, from being a stalwart royalist, I have become someone who wants to get rid of the lot of them. Charles will be the same. He'll sign any bill that's presented to him so the gravy boat doesn't get rocked.
They've served their day.
The Queen could have dissolved a dishonest and dissolute and self-serving Parliament, and she didn't.
Ten years and she read out the speeches. I don't think she's overly bright, but I think she is sentient enough to understand that the national rug was being pulled from under her feet. If she isn't, Prince Philip definitely is.
Rush Is Right - You may not have seen my posts on other threads, but I have given up on the Queen and think the days of royalty have served their ends but are finished.
The Queen, knowing that Tony Blair was a malignant knave who was destroying her (and our) country, read out his speeches in Parliament year after year. He had at this point shown himself so powerful (or so lacking in opposition) that I feel she feared for her position and her family. Not that they would be hurt, but that they'd have been robbed of their privileged position. And their money.
I think she would have been able to keep her £800m because Blair was after bigger game, but he needed the legitimacy of the Queen's signature. She obliged.
This timorousness has been a thread through the Blair years, during which he kindly steered her through the Diana "tragedy". Quid pro quo and don't forget who helped you through the Diana revolution.
Granted, she is old. But, while she had the ability to shut Blair's odious government down, she never made a peep. She got in the carriage, drove to Westminster and made those speeches. Year after year after year.
To have one individual as the head of state of so many countries is too fractured in any instance, and provides too good an excuse.
I've travelled from royalist to republican in a few easy steps.
The Queen allowed the unravelling of our British identity and history. It happened on her watch.
She had no respect, or fondness, for us, the indigenes. Personally, as an indigene, I return the sentiment.
Verity, I agree with everything you say. I suggested the Queen should get directly involved in the way I have in mind because she is the one person in the country who could not be accused of putting self-interest first. Also as Head of State she does have the legitimate power to act(albeit vestigial and not used meaningfully since she deposed Gormless Gough Whitlam in Australia).
The Augean stables here need a damned good flushing out, and if Queen isn't to do it there isn't anybody else.
And yes, like you, I have little confidence that she will act. She did after all sign the Hunting with Dogs Act into law, as nasty a piece of class-based prejudice ever to see the Statute Book. She could have used her powers to throw it back to Parliament.
I feel she could even acted behind the scenes to affect an improvement. She could have called Brown in and told him that Hain had to go. Perhaps she did. Though somehow I doubt it. She could even have stamped her foot down about a referendum on the EU Constitution. But she's done nothing.
So, yes, you are right. We all know what should happen, but it won't because she doesn't want to get in out of her depth. Her advisors should point her where her duty lies.
Er, people, the queen is only a ceremonial head of state, in case you hadn't noticed, she's not really in charge.
Post a Comment