Perhaps nothing best exemplifies the decline in national political debate better than the totally bourgeois preoccupation with the Duchess of Cambridge’s baby. The fawning thrall in which Britons hold their ruling classes should,
in today’s world, be an acute embarrassment.
But in the context of the Western world’s celebration
of inane celebrity culture, the fascination with the doings of the anachronistic House of Windsor is perhaps partly explicable.
So, Mrs Catherine Windsor is having a baby. Jolly good show. So do millions of other women every year. If she has any social conscience at all, in the name of population control this will be her last one. As it is this one will be
another scion of privilege living off the state.
That the woman had to go to hospital for morning sickness
amply demonstrates one, her preciousness, and two, what cosseted Nanny State babies we have all become. Millions of deserving women around the world have never seen the inside of a hospital, let alone be treated in one for morning sickness.
In the grip of economic recession and political morbidity, it is a sad reflection on the intellectual calibre and political consciousness
of the British masses that they should have nothing else to talk about except a celebrity baby.
worse, that the petite bourgeoisie of other counties around the world, such as Australia, are themselves in a spin about this damnable charade, is a telling critique of their level of political maturity. In Australia the national broadcaster has been full
of the news, one television broadcast devoting several valuable news minutes on the nonsense.
down culture is certainly a paving stone on the highway to political suppression.
of the Press
The reaction of Britain’s political classes to the Leveson inquiry into
the media has thrown up some interesting sideshows.
Although no-one can gainsay the ill-principled nature
of media telephone tapping, computer hacking, cheque book journalism and so forth, no-one with an ounce of the spirit of political freedom should gainsay the importance of a free press.
It is therefore ironic to see the so-called parties of reform baying for statutory regulation of the press. But, on consideration, their stance is highly predictable.
The Liberal-Democrats, easily confused at best, are the populist, feel-good party of British politics. The unworthy
inheritors of the once proud Liberal tradition of personal freedom of thought, religion and action, this bastard political agglomeration has long been the party of soft causes and social engineering in the name of the great British cringe. Traditional Liberal
Party members should be sorely affronted at the prospect of press regulation.
By contrast, regulation is the watchword of the Labour Party. Like all quasi-socialist parties of reform, étatist by their very nature, regulation is the key to the enforcing of their various programmes of social engineering. It is their
first and last answer to all problems. Let the government fix it - more regulation. Such regulation is the fundament of today’s Nanny State. Political correctness and its concomitant and increasing restriction on the freedom of expression are direct
reflections of the dependency of such parties on regulation.
The Conservative Party, the party for all
seasons and the political home of the traditional bourgeoisie has, with some individual exceptions, excelled itself. Top marks should be given to Tory leader David Cameron for his anti-statutory regulation stance. His endeavours to encourage the media industry
to accept the idea of a non-statutory independent regulator are to be warmly applauded.
long fought for the principle of freedom of expression. That a Tory, even someone as chameleon-like and wishy-washy as Cameron, should seek to maintain the effective freedom of the press is indeed a splendid affirmation that some remnants of the spirit of
a free and open society still remain in that country.