Conservatism may still be strugging to regain a meaningful presence in the United Kingdom but boy is it alive and well in Iran! he BBC’s bizarre obsession with the alleged forces of conservatism in Iran reappears today in its coverage of the Iranian parliamentary elections. This time round though it’s not the 13th Iman’s dining pal and holocaust denier President Ahmadinejad that is the “conservative” – no, it turns out that it is his critics – the uber-fascists – that are now designated “conservatives”! It’s as if the BBC staff-writers have set themselves the objective of labelling the biggest Islamofascists around as “conservatives” in some puerile attempt to demonise that very term. The radical Islamist regime that pollutes Iran can be called many things but as I said yesterday, and as I repeat today, it is in no way conservative. The international left of centre MSM of which the BBC is such a central element, may seek to designate the term conservatism to the Khomeini legacy but the truth is that it is a Nazi-like Islamic theocratic tyranny which curiously enough has created close links with favoured LEFTIST regimes such as Venezuela and Cuba. How long before Hugo Chavez is defined as a leading conservative politician?
David Cameron to relocate to Iran?
Bookmark the permalink.
“Iran the world’s ‘role model and saviour'”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/03/iran-worlds-role-model-and-saviour.html
Mr Orange:
The international left of centre MSM of which the BBC is such a central element, may seek to designate the term conservatism to the Khomeini legacy
Which includes, on yesterday’s speed-read the Wall St Journal, the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Jerusalem Post, Sky News, and many, many more…
As well as re-defining the political dictionary, are we now shifting the whole political spectrum where even Mr Murdoch’s most reliable outlets, along with the Jerusalem Post and the dear old Torygraph are now left of centre. All of them, as we debated yesterday in enormous detail, used the c-word to describe the factions around Ahmadinejad.
You don’t think that it might be you that’s a bit, ahem, right of centre?
If anyone has a bizarre obsession, it’s not the BBC, it’s you. With this level of political nous, it’s little wonder that your party did so disastrously bad in the last Northern Ireland Assembly elections.
Is it?
Biased BBC: The Telegraph is part of an international left-wing conspiracy. No, really.
Would you prefer the BBC to use the term “reformist”? Surely that would be rather inaccurate.
Islamofascist nazis would seem more to the point.
When the Iron Curtain fell, the Communists who tried to get back into power, sometimes by violence, were habitually referred to by the Beeb as ‘conservatives.’ Never Marxist or ‘left-wingers,’ if I remember correctly.
Reagan, Thatcher the Pope and Helmut Kohl, amongst others led the resistance to the evil Empire (defamed though they were as power-mad promoters of Nuclear Winter all the way by the Beeb and almost all leftists in the West, apart from some honourable exceptions ), but when the Old Guard tried to reconsolidate the
Marxist State, it was ‘conservatives’ who sent the tanks in to surround the Russian parliament building, according to BBC journalists at the time.
Beeb speak – anything bad rooted in last week or longer ago = ‘conservative.’
Oops. Sorry, I don’t have a political homepage, and left Mel P’s in. Sorry.
Doh
“Islamofascist nazis would seem more to the point.”
That’s a bit too strong and not quite accurate enough for an impartial organisation. It’s also what the Germans would call “doppelt gemoppelt”.
Islamists for a second holocaust any better?
Angry Young Alex:
Would you prefer the BBC to use the term “reformist”? Surely that would be rather inaccurate.
How about hard-line, traditionalist, tyrannical, autocratic, theocratic, totalitarian, oppressive, despotic, illiberal, intolerant, bigoted, reactionary, narrow-minded, proscriptive, prejudiced, dogmatic, unfair, discriminatory etc. etc.
If we enter the following search string…
Iran conservative site:.news.bbc.co.uk
into Google we get 72,800(!) hits.
Amazing.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Iran+conservative+site:.news.bbc.co.uk&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
Good catch anonymous!
hard-line, traditionalist, theocratic, dogmatic are all legitimate, and all get used to my knowledge.
tyrannical, autocratic, totalitarian, oppressive, despotic, illiberal, intolerant, bigoted, reactionary, narrow-minded, proscriptive, prejudiced, dogmatic, unfair, discriminatory all have rather negative connotations and it’s not the BBC’s place to comment.
LOL AYA – you’re a comedy act.
anon:
How odd. I got 9,770 hits. But let’s not quibble.
Let’s try instead:
Iran conservative site:.telegraph.co.uk
You get 4,630 hits.
Which brings us back to the inanity of Vance’s obsession. He wrongly believes that conservative with a small ‘c’ is a word denoting approval. It’s not – it’s a useful word allowing you to locate a party in its own electoral market, as the Telegraph does in its Iran reporting, too.
Many Conservative writers praise Mrs Thatcher’s radical policies. This does not mean they’re trying to tar her with the brush of radical islam or student radicalism – it means her reforms were a big departure from Conservative thought and had a far-reaching impact. Radical is a udeful word because it allows you to specify what brand of Conservatism, or Islam or student politics you’re talking about. It does not confer moral superiority or degeneracy.
Small ‘c’ conservative is another of those. Seeing it as a brand conferring approval – like Rolls-Royce or Marks & Sparks – is political illiteracy.
Biased BBC: We’ve now discovered Google
“Where do you stand in the new culture wars?”
(-including ‘take our culture wars quiz’)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2701379.ece
72,800 vs 4,630 hits (15:1) – do you draw any conclusion from that Hillcnut?
72,800 vs 9,770 hits – Biased-BBC might have discovered Google, poor old Hillcnut seems unable to use it.
Northwester
excellent point.
when Communists or leftists who have been previously eulogised start smellimg of rotten fish, they are redefined as conservatives by the leftist media.
SOmething like that anyway.
I think the BBC is being no different from other MSM of all political shades by using the word conservative in this context. Northnorthwester made an interesting point about the hardline Russian communists after the russian coup though – I distinctly remember them (the hardline extreme leftwing communist Generals) being labled as … “right-wing” elements on some BBC reports(!!!) I’ll see if I can dig anything up – anyone else remember this?
‘I think the BBC is being no different from other MSM of all political shades by using the word conservative in this context.’
I agree simon.
I noticed that myself David. It would have made me fall of my chair if I indeed were not so used to the BBC often pulling this type of highly party politically motivated stunt, and also not laying down already.
It does of course beg the Question whether the BBC employs anyone at the BBC who is fully or roundly educated enough to have ever understood what conservatism or being a conservative is all about?
In respects to Iran it would be something like a return to post revolutionary Iran with a slow but sure liberalization and by now free and democratic elections.
Our problem is that we do not have our own house in order TO SAY THE LEAST.
We are not free, liberal or democratic, in any sense that i understand the words. We are being dictated to by our ruling elites almost as much as our Iranian brothers and sisters.
Which is hardy much to recommend to the rest of the world.
After all can we really expect the MEN or WOMEN currently living in Iran to become more westernized when the BBC and the British media promote our own social disasters as positive things. Along with our current obviously Neo-fascist and Neo-Marxist British government that constantly encourage such things?
One parent families, promoted as the norm rather then the exception. That is positively encouraged by the tax system, and the BBC.
A general lack of respect for parents deliberately propagated by the state, its education system and our own BBC.
Economic cycles designed by our ruling elites to cement absolute power over the people, hidden by our own BBC.
Forever increasing violence in the streets, that our own ‘wonderful’ BBC pretends as much as possible is just a figment of our idiot imaginations.
Criminals treated better then the victims, that our BBC thinks is simply fine in all respects.
Deliberately created government and Big money inspired debt slavery, that the BBC just rights off as simply the fault of American white trailer park trash. Or those evil Republicans.
A constantly and consistently dishonest imperialistic, force funded BBC. That forever takes the piss and has no intention of stopping its ruthlessly divisive propaganda.
An out of touch Royal family thats hates the English people, and is only interested in fucking anything that moves while making more immoral cash for their own bankers, when not on the job.
Draconian smoking Bans, even in privately owned establishments, could you possibly believe?
Cameras watching just about everything we do. (Sooner then you may hope if we don’t watch out, even inside our own homes.)
Food Fascism, to the point of causing more eating disorders then it stops.
ID cards for even your children. Designed for every bad reason under the sun except the ones the government and the BBC tells us they are.
Along with other countless ever increasing repressive rules and regulations simply designed to mess with our heads, make us poorer, force small and medium sized privately owned business to give up the pointless effort, while controlling our every waking hour.
Our democratic institutions relegated to rubber stamping devices for a completely undemocratic European Fascist Super State.
And on and on and on and on.
Hardy surprising our Ruling Class no longer seriously expect an Iranian Counter revolution. So are trying to mop up all international resistance to our very own Neo-Marxist Neo-Fascist capitalist system the hard way. IS IT?
I have no problem us doing our utmost to bring peace, freedom, democracy, REAL free market capitalism, respect for others and universal liberty to the whole world.
But it is surly as clear as day is it not? We can not achieve this peacefully, when we are not any of these things ourselves.
AND THE BBC CONSTANTLY KEEPS TELLING THE ARAB PEOPLE SO AT OUR EXPENSE
At least the BBC are reporting the disqualification of any candidate wanting change, in the past the BBC have been keen to portray Iran as a democracy (“within limits” or somesuch absurd qualifier).
The communist “Daily Telegraph” states:
“Iran’s conservatives appear to have won convincingly in the country’s general elections, with over 70 per cent of parliamentary seats won, the interior minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi has announced.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/15/wiran115.xml
David Blair is so extremely left-wing that he does not even mention the word “Islam” in his article. Interestengly, for such a commu-fascist publication, the word “Lenin” is also missing. Shouldn’t he have hailed to victory of the “Islamo-Leninist” powers in Iran?
“Iran’s conservatives appear to have won convincingly in the country’s general elections, with over 70 per cent of parliamentary seats won, the interior minister Mostafa Pour Mohammadi has announced.”
Funny how they didn’t give Iranian elections as much coverage as American elections
So does that mean they are covering Iranian elections less out of love for Iran or covering American elections more out of hatred for America?
Angry Young Alex:
and it’s not the BBC’s place to comment
Calling them ‘conservative’ is already a comment, unless they call themselves the “Conservative Party”.
As David Vance pointed out, they seem to be friendly with the leftist government of Venezuela. Thus labeling the Iranian political party as conservative is misleading to a Western audience. As I recall, they call themselves “Revolutionary”. Wouldn’t that make them left-wing?
Bollocks that the left of BBC Telegraph also calls the “Conservative”. Those pesky commies all need a good beating!
“As David Vance pointed out, they seem to be friendly with the leftist government of Venezuela. Thus labeling the Iranian political party as conservative is misleading to a Western audience. As I recall, they call themselves “Revolutionary”. Wouldn’t that make them left-wing?”
You’re not serious are you? The last thing the Mullahs want now is a revolution.
“Conservative” is a very broad term and what exactly it entails all depends what it is that is being conserved. The revolution was nearly thirty years ago. This movement is “conservative” in comparison to the reformists.
The problem is that it’s a crap word.
I think we are getting lost in semantics here – a favourite game of the classically educated. (Hitler was a “conservative” as he wanted to conserve the aryan race?)
The meat of it is the glossing over Iran being a theocracy not a democracy. God rules, but as he has some difficulty communicating his wishes, he needs 700 priests to tell us what he wants.You cant vote out the priests.
Hillhunt, AYA, etc. Your OK slagging David Vance off but where is your defence of the BBC’s recent outrageous series which effectively slagged off the white working class of Britain in order to trumpet their own biased leaning towards Muslims, Islam and immigrants in general. I’ve seen very little from you lot on this issue.
I assumed that AYA and Hillhunt have been away together – on holiday or some BCC Awareness Course. Or perhaps some wonderful medical treatment in Cuba?
Hillhunt, AYA, etc. Your ….OK meggoman | 16.03.08 – 9:27 am | #
Just need to correct “Your” to “You’re” just to prove to you beeboids that not all white working classes are illiterate as protrayed in the BBC programmes.
It may only be semantics, but ‘conservative’ does not denote the essence of that regime.
So what if others in the MSM use the same small ‘c’ term – that is irrelevant.
If the Beeb are interested in showing themselves in a better intellectual light than other media outlets then let’s see them objectively identify the nature of a particular country’s rulers instead of using trite and utterly meaningless labels that today tell you nothing.
GBS
Okay… now we know it’s not just the BBC who claims IRAN isn’t run by a gang of Jew/Christian hating Islamo-terrorist nutters… It’s run by “conservatives…”
But how about this al-REUTERS piece of slime…
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/politics-uk.html
Conservatives tipped to win in Iran election
Friday, March 14 10:25 am
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranians voted on Friday in a low-key election likely to keep parliament in the grip of conservatives after unelected state bodies barred many reformist foes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from the race. More »
Follow me here chaps as I show how AL-REUTERS TRUMPS EVEN THE BBC…
When you go to the body copy, al-Reuters conveniently adds a HYPERLINK to the word “conservative.” And guess to which website one is transported?
That’s RIGHT… The offical British Tory party website!
Jack Bauer:
guess to which website one is transported?
That’s RIGHT… The offical British Tory party website!
Time to visit Specsavers. That page is Yahoo News’s pull-together of stories about the Conservative Party. Not Dave’s home-page.
One other little detail: The hyperlinked page with the Tory link is also Yahoo News. My betting is some harassed sub-editor sprinkling dim-witted links around to tart the piece up.
If you check “al-Reuters'” page, you get clean copy, no links:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKBLA34878020080316
.
meggoman:
where is your defence of the BBC’s recent outrageous series
I’m not offering one. I thought some of the pieces were very good TV, but the over-arching theme was misguided, missing its target by a long distance.
Curiously, the guv’nor on this series was Richard Klein, who’s generally seen by media-watchers as the BBC’s one high-profile, ahem, Conservative.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/oct/24/mondaymediasection19
What does that tell us?
That Tories can’t be trusted with the white working class?
That political leanings are no guide to the quality of someone’s work?
Or that stuff sometimes gets messed up, whoever’s in charge?
.
Hillhunt – do you have a non-troll life ?
Just curious.
‘Conservative’ is a valid term to use in this instance.
If you are saying the the BBC chooses to use this term to make the UK Conservative Party subconsciously linked to the Iranian regime, then this is pure speculation and is very difficult to prove one way or the other.
David,
I’m usually with you on your Biased BBC postings, but on this occasion I think you’re wrong about the BBC’s use of “conservative” re the Iranian mullahs, in that (just for once) I don’t believe it’s a calculated snub to David Cameron et al.
And though I won’t for a second dispute the sheer evil of the Iranian regime, it’s really a question of perspective, for whether an existing regime is hard-left, or ultra-fascist, those within it who are resisting change are, by definition, conservative.
And the question is not a particularly new one: a good literary example would be The Darfsteller, the 1955 Hugo Award-winning short story by Walter M. Miller, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darfsteller).
I’m quoting from memory here as I haven’t got it to hand, but within the story a play is being performed, set in a post-communist Russia, and it is the communist old-guard who are referred to (in so many words) as conservative, and the anti-communists (what WE might call “right wing”) as the progressives.
But consider how often, in different circumstances, it is LEFT-wing movements which are called “liberal” and “progressive”.
The word ‘hardliners’ seems to be creeping into descriptions of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regime.
For example, ‘Sunday Telegraph’ has:
“the hardliners aligned with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)”
At least, ‘hardliners’ here gives a better take on the activities of the Iranian regime that ‘conservatives’.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14601
“Hillhunt, AYA, etc. where is your defence of the BBC’s recent outrageous series which effectively slagged off the white working class of Britain…I’ve seen very little from you lot on this issue.”
Here’s mine:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2649845930098669161/#389287
I didn’t feel particularly qualified to speak on the subject not having seen it.
“But consider how often, in different circumstances, it is LEFT-wing movements which are called “liberal” and “progressive”.”
Don’t forget “liberal” means something rather different in most of mainland Europe than it does in Britain and America.
I can’t believe you’ve come back to this issue after the argument was soundly dismantled earlier in ‘THE IRANIAN MAKE-OVER’.
Have you ever heard of a ‘conservtaive estimate’? or ‘a liberal dose’. Apply the meanings of the words here to the context of political philosphies in Iran.
Or consider what is meant by ‘a conservative or liberal attitude to sex’. (Theres not enough sex on BiasedBBC in my opinion)
I would love to know who these uninformed people are who are reading the BBC website coverage of the Iranian elections and without the intervention of BiasedBBC would be under the impression that David Cameron and Ahmadinejad are political bedfellos.
Biased BBC: Making Islamofascist nazis estimates.
Hillhunt:
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????
I am telling you CATEGORICALLY that the REUTERS produced article in YAHOO UK linked the WORD conservative to the TORY PARTY WESITE on FRIDAY when I checked it.
IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU.
JB:
IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU.
And I’m suggesting to you that Reuters copy was supplied to Yahoo News, who have clearly added their own links to it… because there are no such links on Reuters’ own pages, and because the links lead to other Yahoo pages.
Reuters supplies news to other organisations all over the world, who frequently re-write it, re-order it and do stuff like add links to it. Why would Reuters link to Yahoo’s pages rather than their own?
Biased BBC: Road Rage For The Myopic
The BBC and the left, deliberately use the word “conservative” with any international political grouping, if it thinks that the British public have a negative perception of such groups. It is so that people will make a subliminal connection between the word “conservtive” and political tyranny or general political nastyness.
The most obvious example was when they they started calling Communists in Russia, “conservatives”, after the collapse of communism. WTF! these people had been called Communists by the media for decades (‘cos it’s what they were!!), the British public fully understood what Communist meant, and then the BBC decided that “Conservative” should be used instead!! Wonder why they did that Hill*unt?
May I try to throw a little chink of light on this rather wayward political nomenclature debate? For reference I am an elected local politician and regularly go to real doorsteps putting my political views to real people, and as such I like to think that I have a more practical working knowledge of these terms. I have to justify my views and approaches to those with no understanding on one hand, and local leaders on the other.
There are 3 axes of politics: left-right, liberal-authoritarian, conservative-radical (this last one is where the confusion comes in).
Nowadays, Left and Right are used purely in economic terms: left means large govt, statist, high tax and public spending. Right means the opposite and is often described as low tax, a focus on self-reliance, small state, freedom of choice in life, less interference by the state.
Left and right no longer have any bearing on social issues in the UK as pretty much we’re all liberals (see below).
On a different axis we have liberal-authoritarian. This defines how much pressure the state puts on citizens/subjects to conform. Nowadays in western Europe, we apply virtually none.
Finally we categorise the pace of change as conservative with a small C or radical.
Does this help? This is how I have expressed my understanding to everyone at all levels of political sophistication, and it seems to be understood.
Comments welcome.
“WTF! these people had been called Communists by the media for decades (‘cos it’s what they were!!), the British public fully understood what Communist meant, and then the BBC decided that “Conservative” should be used instead!!”
Wrong. They used the word ‘conservative’, not ‘Conservative’. The old-school Communists wanted to conserve things. The Perestroika-types wanted reform. What you are doing is vainly trying to apply British political terms to entirely different political systems.
On a different axis we have liberal-authoritarian. This defines how much pressure the state puts on citizens/subjects to conform. Nowadays in western Europe, we apply virtually none…….
Comments welcome.
Firefoxx | 16.03.08 – 3:50 pm | #
Err……unless we,
Put our rubbish out a day early
Pass a speed camera at 35 mph
Express dislike of sodomy
Complain about the early morning call to prayer waking us up
Carry our shopping home in a plastic bag
Have a second home (unless we’re politicians of course)
Park a few inches out of line
Smack our kids when they’re naughty
Like a fag
Water our gardens when they need it
Forget to tax an old banger locked up in our own garage
Protest about our council tax
……no pressure at all, really.
Why am I not surprised you’re a politician.
Not quite the same as:
Have consensual sexual intercourse with someone who is not our spouse
Express disapproval of the government
Go to the wrong website
Like the wrong gender
Change our religion
Listen to the wrong music
Attempt to translate Animal Farm
Speak Kurdish
Leave your hair uncovered
is it John?
Let me please try to help some people with their understandable confusion?
The BBC as we can see clearly has an agenda all of its own. It claims that this is somewhere in the middle of the two main parties.
This is broadly correct. But never the less, is just as likely to be NOT what the British people want or is good for them, as any other position.
In my own personal opinion being in the middle is more likely to NOT be either of these things, almost all of the time.
Although internationalists such as Marxists and Fascists like the BBC don’t care about the interests of their particular electorate or their customers anyway. Therefore have little problem with this. They also find it impossible to understand why we the people of Britain very often do have a very big problem with it.
They only really care about their own personal university brainwashing inspired, rampant internationalism, and their own personal status and Swiss bank accounts.
This of course explains very well why only real nationalism such as the BNP or UKIP are a complete NO NO with not just the BBC but all main stream political parties. ( The BNP of course being a complete NO NO to just about everyone with a brain at all. )
So why does the BBC have an agenda when they are not, by their charter, supposed to have any such thing, you may well ask?
Also where does it get this obvious agenda from?
The answers to these questions are far more simple then the majority of the people of the world beive. Mainly because people like the BBC News corp The AP and Reuters, never tell them the real truth under any circumstances. Doing so is quite literally, more then their lives and certainly their jobs, are worth.
The agenda of the BBC is a New World Order world establishment agreed agenda. This is formulated at a level of world government well above our own domestic party political system.
The party that most closely follows the correct New World Order agenda is the one that gets the most of the BBC’s support. This whether a majority of the employees working in the Media in general like it or not. Simply massive Top down CORPORATIONS in the media or not are never, repeat NEVER, run by the blind idiots at or anywhere near the bottom of the corporate pyramid.
The agenda is largely formulated and decided on, inside inter governmental organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, The Council for Foreign Relations, and The Tri Lateral Commission. Among others at a higher more select level, and others at a less select level, such as The EU and UN.
The more select bodies meet in secret and the contents of discussion and the plots and conspiracies they agree to are also very highly secret. For the obvious reason that they know full well that most ordinary people would be shocked beyond belief if they knew what they were. Also that conspiracies and plots have a habit of not working at all if every body in the world knows about them in advance.
The people that run and control these groups are the big banking and industrial corporations financed by mainly, but in no way exclusively by The Rothschild’s and The Rockafella’s.
The people that attend them are by invitation only if they are ‘lucky’. Although they normally involve the attendance of high representatives of both the main political parties from both right and left. Labour, Liberal and Conservative, Republican and Democrat, radical and reactionary.
Also INVITED if they are also ‘lucky’, are leaders in the MEDIA scientific, industrial, financial, educational, environmental, and military fields in all of the major industrialized countries.
This of course should explain just about all you need to know about why British American and world politics seems so often not to make any type of logical sense. Also why it so often seems to work in the long term interests of no one at all. However if you can get the above firmly in your mind EVERYTHING makes sense.
Not always nice sense but sense all the same.
What national political parties do is deal with the details. But the general real agenda is either followed or all hell breaks out within the respective countries economy and or civil cohesion, sooner or later. As both left wing protest groups and the Central Banks are controlled and financed by the same people.
Our political parties are not run by stupid idiots or fools or even always bad people, you may be reassured to know. Its just the way it has long since been. More now then ever before
My advice is to vote for the political party that most closely represents your personal priorities. You never know your luck, things may get better for you and your family, if you do.
But do not keep laboring under the BBCs created Establishment inspired illusion, it will change anything very significant, and you will not be disappointed.
One thing I can state without any fear of losing my shirt. It will make not one tiny bit of difference who becomes the next British PM or the next American President. Our current problems in the middle east have a long long while to run, and will get much much worse before it gets much better. It will also make no different if 50% of the entire population hit the streets and tried to stop the war either. All it would achieve is making matters far worse for ourselves, in terms of personal prosperity, liberty and freedom.
Also understand that by definition all top politicians along with all top media people are lying though their teeth. Otherwise they will never be allowed to get elected in the first place, broadcast or publish for long or at all. The BBC therefore has been in corporate business for over 70 years almost entirely without seeming interference or problems, for a very good/bad reason.
In the case of politicians they would only be allowed to stay in power long enough to change the curtains, or make their own funeral requests. If they do not or can not manage to play at least the most important parts of the world establishments game.
John Major’s government being the most recent example of what happens when you cant get your party or your electorate to go along with the BIG agenda.
Our top politicians KNOW this, and so now do you.