@1party4all Oh Claire, I'm sure you must have bigger fish to fry :)
— Andrew Thorpe-Apps (@AG_ThorpeApps) April 6, 2013
What I found shocking and outrageous is that this young man who is legally-trained and is also Suffolk Chairman of Conservative Future is saying that the fact that his party has no principles is a storm in a teacup.
My view is that the Conservative Party has no principles is big news indeed.
My BNP associates do not suffer from this deficiency for they at least know what their party is supposed to stand for while this young man who is a lawyer no less, neither knows nor cares what a principle is.
I would have thought any educated and honourable man would have principles and be proud of having them.
But then I am of that age when it was an insult to say of another that he had no principles.
Now the British are so dumbed down and degenerate that they do not even regard it as an insult because they do not understand its implications. How very interesting.
I did once ask Eddy Butler, the ex-BNP National Organiser the purpose of principles, but he told me that they served no purpose. I had thought it was his little joke at my over-earnest expense, but it seems he meant every word.
The best answer I received to my question "What is a principle?" was "Principals is a fashion outlet selling women's clothing." This was from the ex-West London Organiser.
However, it seems that no one else is shocked at this ignorance, so corrupt now are the morals of the British, and so dumbed down are they that even those in the political classes proudly proclaim their ignorance of this abstract ethical concept.
I wonder how many MPs would make a creditable attempt at answering the questions I have set in this test at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/politics-of-principle-discuss.html
They would all fail miserably, I predict, and Cameron would do worst of all.
To remedy the national ignorance as to the concept of principle, I will step into the breach and explain.
A Statement of Principles, however laughable, would be along these lines:
"The Party supports the following principles:
1. We shall go on to the end.
2. We shall fight in France.
3. We shall fight on the seas and oceans.
4. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air.
5. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
6. We shall fight on the beaches.
7. We shall fight on the landing grounds.
8. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets.
9. We shall fight in the hills.
10. We shall never surrender."
To offend against the first principle of going on to the end, we would have to not go on to the end.
To offend against the principle of fighting in France, we would have to not fight at all, or fight, but not in France.
To offend against the principle of fighting in the seas and the oceans, we would have to not fight at all, or fight only in the oceans but not the seas, or fight in the seas but not the oceans.
To offend against the principle of fighting with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we would have to not fight at all, or fight, but not in the air, or, fight in the air, but with lessening confidence and increasing weakness.
To offend against the principle of defending our island, whatever the cost may be, we would have to not defend our island, or only defend it until the cost grew too great.
To offend against the principle of fighting on the beaches, we would have to not fight at all, or fight, but not on the beaches.
To offend against the principle of fighting on the landing grounds, we would have to not fight at all, or fight, but not on the landing grounds.
To offend against the principle of fighting in the fields and in the streets, we would have to fight neither in the streets or fields, or, fight in the fields but not the streets, or the streets but not the fields.
To offend against the principle of fighting in the hills, we would have to not fight at all, or fight, but not in the hills.
To offend against the principle of never surrendering, we would surrender without a fight, or surrender after a fight.
If the entire Conservative Party does not even understand what a principle is, then it is quite clear that they have no principles.
They really cannot know what a principle is, if even the Chairman of the Board of the Conservative Party is claiming that the paragraphs of platitudinous puffery contained in the Foreword of their 2010 election manifesto http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Activist%20Centre/Press%20and%20Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto2010 can by any argumentation be said to contain discernible political principles.
To have principles is to subscribe to system of morality or practices which is supposed to achieve a certain purpose (eg to win a war), however misguided it was to fight it in the first place. You would expect someone who says he is a Nazi to support Nazi principles, for example. If you were to discover that the person who says he is a Nazi does not even know what Nazi principles are, then you should take him to be a fool, a madman or an ignoramus.
This young man was acknowledging that his party has no principles and therefore subscribed to no coherent or known system of morality. Worse, he was saying that that fact was of no consequence, as far as he was concerned.
If that ain't moral corruption and degeneracy as well as low standards of legal education, I really don't what is. If only journalists would ask David Cameron what a principle is and the purpose of having principles. I know he was supposed to have done PPE at Oxford but I am pretty sure his answer would be just as laughable as the one he gave on the David Letterman Show when we all learnt to our horror Magna Carta died in vain.
Only in a degenerate dumbed-down Britain could such a man become leader of the Conservative Party.
Only if there is something wrong with its political system could he continue to remain leader.
If any Conservative continues to insist that David "Gay Marriage" Cameron represents Conservative values, or has the first idea what they are, he should be shot for being a Commie Pinko. It is in any case mostly female MPs who are OK with this gay marriage malarkey anyway.
Genuine Conservatism will continue to be marginalised if the Tories continue to endure the horror of being led by a leader who promotes gay marriage because his unelected wife wishes it.
It is horrible, degrading and shaming to call oneself British and Conservative these days.
Why can't the Tories even get it together to get him to go for the sake of their own electoral survival?
Is it imbecility, paralysis or dementia?
Conservative Party Chairman claims that puffery in Foreword of 2010 manifesto contains established and generally understood principles of Conservatism