The principle the Conservative Party ought to have

It would appear that the major parties that form the governments of the West have no principles at all.

I have asked both the Republican and Democratic Parties what their principles are but have received nothing more than a confused and horrified silence.

The Conservative Party of Britain are threatening me with their costs if I do not succeed in application for permission to seek judicial review.

The purpose of doing so is to get them to publish a formal Statement of Principles, but I fear that no one understands or cares what this is all about.

The Labour Party started with the principle of nationalising everything in sight but abandoned them for the platitudinous confection that replaced their old clause iv in 1995, in order to get elected in 1997.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

If they are all going to be like that, then why not just agree to promote the long-term national interest - an equally vague concept?

Why not pretend that the long-term national interest is something that could be conserved by Conservatives, and laboured for by the Labour Party?

No one can possibly find anything in the new clause iv objectionable, not even a Conservative, not even me.  Why not scrap the lot, became just one party and agree collectively to promote the long-term national interest?

At least something said to be in the long-term national interest can stand and fall on those terms.  If it is arguably against the national interest to pursue a certain policy and it is successfully argued against, then it shall not be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote against it.

If it is arguably for the national interest to pursue a policy and successfully argued for, then it shall be government policy if the majority of MPs for whom every vote will be a free vote vote for it.

Secular Koranism promotes Conservative values and nothing that it enjoins or forbids would be against the long term national interest.

Those who object will not have read the Koran.  In any case, when have liberals or feminists ever considered the long term national interest and instead based every decision on short termist expediency?

What possible objection would the Conservative Party have to saying that its principle is to promote the long-term national interest as well as to conserve it, and to exhort Labour to labour for it too?

Questions to ask about Fascism and Nazism

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/at-least-di-canio-is-honest-about-his-fascist-views-unlike-his-critics-8555980.html

Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage.

1. If you agree with the above, does that make you a fascist?
2. Is universal suffrage moral, rational, practicable and sustainable?
3. What is your definition of Fascism?
4. Is it possible that Fascism as an ideology is perfectly sound and moral, if only Mussolini had not ruined things by taking too many risks?
5. Was General Franco a Fascist?
6. Is Fascism really a fancy name for social conservatism?
7. Was Fascism a reaction against Feminism and International Marxism?
8. What does Di Canio understand by fascism?
9. Should Di Canio be made to explain what he as a Fascist proposes to do that the government is not currently doing?
10. Is Fascism racist?
11. In what way is fascism different from National Socialism?
12. Is Nazism the same as National Socialism?
13. Can one, logically speaking, validly claim to be a National Socialist without being either racist or antisemitic?
14. What is, for you, the most attractive thing about Nazism?  (a) Hitler and Mein Kampf (b) antisemitism (c) smart uniforms and potent imagery (d) Nazi rallies (e) one-party-ism (f) the idea of German racial superiority
15. What is wrong or evil about Fascism as expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_Fascism?
16. Fascism declares itself to be the antithesis of liberalism and assumes the evil of Liberalism.  Could Liberalism in some way be so impracticable, irrational and destructive that it is dangerous to the long term national interest?
17. Can Fascism be separated from aggressive militarism and an expansionist foreign policy involving the invasion of other people's lands?  
18. If Fascism cannot be separated from aggressive militarism and an expansionist foreign policy, in what way is Liberal interventionism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in practice different from Italian Fascist and German Nazi foreign policy before WW2 in terms of military aggression?
19. Is Fascism considered undesirable and evil just because it was associated with the failed dictator Mussolini?
20. If Liberalism eventually fails does that mean it is also undesirable and evil?
21. Why are we so sure that Liberalism is not undesirable and not evil?  Could it be that we are told never to question the morality of Liberalism?
22. Did you know that there is Fascist insignia in the Oval Office?  

    

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Guard_Bureau_(insignia).svg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#Fasces_in_the_United_States
23. Is Fascism just a yearning for national unity, order and strength?
24. If Fascism is just the political expression of an understandable yearning for national pride, unity, order and strength by patriotic citizens in the face of social disintegration, disorder and weakness caused by Liberalism and Feminism, is it understandable why the Liberal Left so hysterically condemn it as evil?
25. Does Liberalism and Feminism cause social disintegration, disorder and weakness in a nation?
26. Is a one-party state the best way of letting the opposing political forces of a nation engage in a continuing battle for supremacy, rather in the same way that a husband and wife might wish to remain married to each other but seek to get their own way in something, under rules that they had both agreed to?
27. Should we care one way or another what our national ideology is called as long as it gives us good government?