Saturday, January 15, 2011

How do you solve a problem like Sayeeda?

His Grace has something of a soft spot for Baroness Warsi.

She is a fighter, if invariably lacking strategy; and she tells it like it is, even when it doesn’t need telling.

Her ascension from twice-failed parliamentary candidate to the highest ranks of the Conservative Party is unprecedented: the ‘greasy pole’ was obligingly degreased especially for her; high-profile roles were created and ladders were made abundant while the snakes of political reality were de-fanged and un-venomed.

Her ethnic co-religionists say what no white-Christian types may: that Sayeeda Warsi was appointed to the House of Lords and propelled into the Shadow Cabinet to become the Britain’s ‘most powerful female Muslim’ and the most senior Muslim politician simply ‘because of her religion’.

It could hardly be because of her outstanding success in fighting general elections, and neither could it be because of her impressive record in any particular sphere, because she does not have one. Her elevation was tangential to but consistent with the aims of David Cameron’s ‘A-list’ – a fundamentally anti-meritocratic mechanism designed specifically to increase the number of female, minority ethnic, homosexual and disabled members on the Conservative benches after the general election.

His Grace is of the view that Baroness Warsi's religion was distinctly secondary to the colour of her skin, though both overrode her views on homosexuality, for which orthodox position no white-Christian type could ever be forgiven.

The ‘A-list’ of candidates was about image and the perception of change: the media can see brown skin, but they can’t see ‘Muslim’ or ‘Sikh’.

Unless they are wearing a hijab or a turban.

Hindu and Buddhist are even more difficult.

Having visibly altered the perception of the Conservative Party to allay allegations of racism by local association dinosaurs, backwoodsmen and the ‘Turnip Taliban’, the next step was to favour their advancement.

And Baroness Warsi is something of a splendid rottweiler when it comes to matters Asian: when she takes on the ‘right-wing’ of her co-religionists, she does so admirably.

She glides through the complexities of Pakistani politics, confronts ‘honour’ killings and forced marriage, exposes voter fraud and immerses herself in very relevant and pressing social issues which benefit more than her co-religionists: her eyes are not solely on the glorification of Allah and the wellbeing of the Ummah.

But when she takes on ‘the right’ of the Conservative Party, besmirching and caricaturing for personal political advantage, she shows herself to be ignorant of the Tory tradition, unaware of the complex dynamics within the organisation, scornful of a great campaigning machine and oblivious to the majority ‘grass-roots’ conservative instinct.

The Conservative Party’s ‘Right’ is the mainstream philosophy. For the Party Chairman to savage them in a broadcast petty tirade is not only unfortunate for the Party, it makes her position untenable. In the words of one Conservative minister, she is ‘an accident waiting to happen’.

If she hasn’t already happened.

The Chairman’s raison d’être is to span the sometimes unbridgeable gulf between the voluntary and parliamentary wings of the Party. Lose faith with one, and the bird comes crashing to earth.

Will the Prime Minister fire her?

No, he cannot.

For being female and Asian, she ticks two quota boxes in the Cabinet. While women in the country will be largely indifferent to her fate, her dismissal will play out badly in the Asian community, even though many do not see her as a 'proper Muslim’.

It would risk re-contaminating the brand which David Cameron has spent his entire leadership decontaminating.

Demotion?

No, he cannot.

For she is already quite a lowly Party Chair(wo)man, being merely co-regent with Andrew Feldman, evidently either not trusted with the office or not sufficiently knowledgeable to be granted it in her own right.

Shuffle?

It is perceptibly patronising to keep placing ethnic minorities in ‘social cohesion’ roles.

Yet the Minister for Women is invariably a woman.

And those whom Mr Speaker invited to his Conference on minority representation and quotas were mostly members of minority groups.

And she does do it rather well; sometimes very well indeed.

On religion in politics, voter fraud, community cohesion, BNP bigotry, Mosque misogyny, Muslim myopia, Pakistani pettiness, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other areas, Sayeeda Warsi consistently shows herself to be in tune with the Conservative mainstream.

Which is ‘right’.

Come on, Sayeeda, admit it.

You love us really.

41 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 January 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger Prodicus said...

My compliments. Very neatly done.

15 January 2011 at 11:44  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

And from whence does she derive her powers, she looks too fat to fit into a phone box and change into her outfit.

Come on Sayeeda admit you are delusional.

15 January 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger Techno Mystic said...

Interestingly, when the Tories won Dewsbury it was with a white, male, middle aged, heterosexual lawyer.

Which makes me wonder if they had put up such a candidate in Old and Sad the Tory voters would have turned out and they would have polled much better.

15 January 2011 at 12:30  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Sayeeda Warsi may as well stay in place. Removing her without removing Cameron would be simply to cut off one head of the hydra. The 11.9% swing in Old & Sad from Conservative to Labour may be just the start.

Now that The Bankers' Friends in Downing Street are going to watch £7 billion disgorged in the same months as petrol increases by 8p/litre and Councils start to implement cutbacks and fuel and energy costs climb, it will seem hard to keep trouble off the streets.

That ACPO is an MI5 front organisation becomes ever harder to deny as police infiltration of protest groups with agent provocateurs becomes more public.

Both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were police agents infiltrating organisations - both going native.

Just when this concoction of a puppet government appointed by City Interests collapses in the face of public anger is unclear; that it will, is certain.

Sayeeda Warsi may as well sit tight. Cameron cannot remove her because he nailed his colours to her mast.

15 January 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Span Ows said...

IMHO she isn't, in any sense, a problem.

15 January 2011 at 14:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trouble with women being put 'in charge' of womens issues is,they are all stupid and pretty clueless.
Harman has put women back a good fifty years with her idiotic mumbo jumbo and when employers,usually male,hear women like Harman,they roll their eyes and close their ears.
We are not all flaky fruitloops,some of us actually like men.
Especially the ones who over rule the likes of Harman.
The majority of women in politics today are of the same mind.
Women today,have children fling them into nurseries,give them everything they want 'stuff' wise and then they are suprised when they lob fire extinguishers off roofs,because they think something was being'taken away'from them.
They have all been 'taught',in their very early foundation years,
by others,who have embedded the governments mantra into their children.
We have an entire generation all thinking the same cockeyed way.
It will take more than Baroness Warsi or the Conservative right/
moderate or whatever to fix it.
That is what needs addressing,not what to do with the Baroness.

15 January 2011 at 14:36  
Anonymous Martin Marprelate said...

Utterly useless and well out of her depth, she is a "Triple Token" appointment. Beyond economical repair. P45 time methinks!

15 January 2011 at 14:45  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

She looks so dominatrix powerful with that pug ugly scowl of hers she could be the next president of Tunisia.

15 January 2011 at 16:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bred in the bone,must really rate themself.
It is not looks that are the problem here.It is the idiotic ideas of the women in politics.
Your thinking she is "fat" & has a
"pug ugly frown"says far more about you than it ever will of her.
Please do try to contribute with something a little more relevant.
I am female by the way.

15 January 2011 at 16:49  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Anon

15 January 2011 14:36

I agree, however if you do not who created/invented feminism, and so the real reasons why it was, then your opinions one the subject are based on a basic misconception, and therefore likely to be pointlessly held.

The EVIDENCE shows that the origins of feminism were not from the working or middle-classes, they were from the very highest class of all. Which were the wives of the owners of The British Empire and most importantly its central and retail Banking System.

You may recall a famous Walt Disney film, namely Mary Poppins, where a bankers wife mindlessly obsessed with gaining votes for women, neglected her personal relationship with her own children.

However in real life the first feminists were the wives of the most powerful bankers in this country and therefore world.

The original concept was therefore created by the exact same people who had earlier created socialism by commissioning and promoting the works of people such as Karl Marx.

I could at this point name names, however I prefer not to do so, for obvious reasons. Also to provide for the reader the need to do their own research on this matter, should they not wish to remain so dangerously ignorant.

The original reason for being of feminism was to disrupt and then ultimately destroy traditional cohesive family life, by keeping mothers as far away from their own children as possible, especially the growing amount of middle-class mothers.

While at the same time providing vast amounts of extra income tax revenues to fund interest payments, for the borrowing of our ever growing corporatist state. This, very obviously by the state being able to increasingly tax two incomes per family, instead of largely just one.

This income first needed to help finance the next two world wars that had already been planned to happen many years before hand.

I think we can all see that feminism has very largely achieved its aims, only possibly not as easily or as quickly as its creators may have wished or expected.

Yes, feminism is just one small, but very important part of a massive establishment planned conspiracy, to undermine nations and their societies in order to create the conditions for a New World Order.

A New World Order that is only new in the sense that it will mark the official end of national government, and therefore democratically accountable government of any kind.

In other words create an all out authoritarian internationalist corporatist reality, better known as WORLD FASCISM or WORLD COMMUNISM, in there most inevitably murderous forms.

What will most surely not be new about the New World Order is its ownership. For the exact same elitist oligarchies and there most favored massively wealthy religious institution, that ran the Old World Order for the last 1600 years, will be more then ever running The New World Order.

15 January 2011 at 17:20  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Should she recant, and side-step to the right, she would ensure her position, whatever that might be.

Were she wise enough, brave enough to admit to her recent folly, she would become a Party 'darling' and by-pass any accusation of 'Aunt Thomasina' - the lot usually reserved for those who attempt ethnic fence-sitting.

15 January 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Atlas shrugged @ 17.20

No one enjoys speculation, idle or otherwise, as much as myself. I love to pull at threads, to see what might unravel; but it has to be said that you manage to knit threads from the 'jumble-bag'!

Your view of history reminds me of my Aunt Ishbelle's Christmas-gift 'sweaters' - warped beyond immediate recognition!

I sometimes suspected that she did it deliberately, out of some ancient perversity. Do you?

15 January 2011 at 18:28  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Anonymous said...
I am female by the way.

And your point is?

Listen I am all for equality for ugly people, I believe the beauty industry should be made to take its fair quota of ugly folk.

Uglyism is worse than racism and gets no recognition, lighten up the shits about to hit the fan, you will be glad of an easy going joker by your side someday ;0)

15 January 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bred in the bone,

I thought she looked a bit porky too, but then I remembered she's a muslim, so she can't be that, just fat.

15 January 2011 at 19:15  
Anonymous PJ said...

An interesting post Your Grace, however it seems that you are bit muddled in your opinion about Baroness Walsi? On the one hand you say you have a "soft spot" for her but then you also claim she is "ignorant" to Tory tradition and is being used for image.

Atlas I can't find any evidence to support your claims about Feminism. Why do you make ambiguous statements without supporting evidence? How do you expect to "enlighten" people with the truth when

15 January 2011 at 19:47  
Anonymous PJ said...

(carried on from last post)...you don't provide evidence?

15 January 2011 at 19:49  
Anonymous Chris Moray said...

What concerned me most about the egg incident was her complete lack of understanding of the Christian religion. When she said "These guys are bringing their religion into disrepute, just like Nick Griffin brings his religion into disrepute" she showed her ignorance of British history and culture. Nick Griffin is not an overtly religious man, and certainly not sympathetic to evangelical Christianity. So primarily labelling him on the basis of a nominal Anglican upbringing rather than by his political affiliaton means she is guilty of the same ignorance as the Muslims who pelted her, and who equate permissive Western culture with 'Christianity'.

15 January 2011 at 19:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where oh where did I mention feminism/feminist?
I have worked with new mothers who are crying heartbroken because they have had to leave their children so young.Unable to do any work for weeks.
It is not natural..We are mamals,
we raise our own young.
Having said that,by the time the child is five,the mothers can't wait to dump their children,with whoever will have them,so they can have their,'ME' time.
Harman's job is done.
This is why we have selfish adults.
Who lob stuff off roof tops when they think something,that is theirs by 'right', is taken from them.When they should have been taught,if you want something that costs money,pay for it yourself.
This is why we have our young girls
accepting 'love'/'affection' from total strangers...they have never experienced it,so do not recognise it.
Feminism/feminist do not come into it.Stupid female politicians and their stupid,empty, women/family destroying policies do.
As for Mary Poppins,you jolly well leave her out of this.
Bred in the bone.
I am a female was so you did not get the idea I was some bloke.
Nothing more,nothing less.
Just for the record,I look like
Cathy McGowan/Chrissie Hinde,if you don't know who Cathy is.

15 January 2011 at 20:05  
OpenID drphilyerboots said...

I rather like Baroness Warsi, more than I used to do. She is a excellent example of an integrated female Muslim, a role model for other female Muslims to aspire to, rather than the restricted life in a Burka. I support and advise a number of female Muslim colleagues in order that the mad mullahs are not the only voices in the Muslim world. It is soft power that will defeat the Islamists, and they know it, which is why they hate her.

And remember, there were not enough right wing conservative votes to win the election. People like Warsi bring in extra votes. Potentially the Asian community could be a rich source of tory voters. Strong families, good work ethic, aspirational, keen on education and business. in many ways Hindus and Sikhs, as well as the more sophisticated Muslims are Natural Tory voters, if the conservatives can shed a few racist stereotypes.

15 January 2011 at 20:06  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dr Phil,

Are you insane?

15 January 2011 at 20:14  
OpenID drphilyerboots said...

Quite possibly!

But not sufficiently to stop voting.

15 January 2011 at 20:38  
Anonymous non mouse said...

OK - Presumably none of us knows who the anon female is; and I fail to see why anyone should answer to her bossyboots requirements for this blog.

In the days when the British were free, I was proud, as well, to consider myself white, female, and in possession of a British passport.

In the present day, subordinate and devoid of our own passports as we are, I am horrified to be forced under the stiletto heeled jackboots of something as vile as a Ministry for Women; which, furthermore, is run by a foreigner and a mozzy. This says that I'm not only oppressed, but also segregated by gender and religion.

Well guess what. I graduated from all-girls schools and, believe me, I'm not going near anything like them ever again.

Oh - yes. Feminism is one of the classifications adopted by our marxist masters: it serves them in their 'divide and conquer' mode. In one university where I studied, female students 'are expected' to adopt the feminist religion [[or else]]. My reactions against feminism being those of severe allergy, I took the other option. It's the usual girls' schoolyard stuff: attempts at character ..er backbiting, whispering, ganging up, victimisation, etc. The sickos had to give me the degree, though...

So, all in all. What His Grace, Bred in the Bone, and Oswin all say.

15 January 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger starcourse said...

Sayeeda Warsi is a very good egg. Everyone makes mistakes - let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

15 January 2011 at 21:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Potentially the Asian community could be a rich source of tory voters. Strong families, good work ethic,

This is balderdash ! When you mean Muslims say so and don't hi-jack Indians or Chinese into the witches' brew. Indians are treated abysmally by the Muslim-fetished politicians in Europe.

Bangladeshis have very low activity rates and live on benefits with high birth rates. Pakistanis, by which you mean Mirpuris more than professionals from Lahore, are also likely to be living on tax credits and subsidies to large families.

They have huge drug problems, easy Muslim divorce, young males who treat women like sh@t and are contemptuous of white women and act in a swaggering provocative manner towards other males.

I think the sooner the Tory Party becomes the Communalist Party pursuing Muslim interests against India and pushing a Muslim agenda in Britain, the sooner we can offload this artefact and find a new expression of national interests.

When you live in areas such as those described in the URL posted by His Grace referring to the vicar's wife in B'ham, you can understand just how dangerous letting Warsi loose to promise to promote and advance Muslim agendas really is.

Cameron has changed the Conservative Party, it is now purely opportunistic and focused on special interests

15 January 2011 at 21:41  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Perhaps Warsi, like (ex-?) communicant Khaw is moving towards a position of Anglicanised Islam.

15 January 2011 at 21:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Dave moves any further to the left wing , he will end up over the touchline and off the pitch.


Marcus Foxall

15 January 2011 at 23:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

What Voyager said.

16 January 2011 at 01:15  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Oswin said...
Atlas shrugged @ 17.20

It is not a view of history, it is your history.

I am very sorry if it is not the history you were told as school, but that is not my fault, perhaps you should have a talk to your lecturers or school teachers, who either lied to you, or far more likely just repeated the same BS they were told at university.

I am sure you will understand that getting over very important FACTS on certain complicated matters using as much brevity as possible, is not an easy task.

The subject of debunking Feminism has been covered in several books, none of which sorter then 500 pages.

However the most damning evidence of the real origins of feminism comes from the big mouths of those that invented it.

For many of them have boasted of having created feminism for the exact reasons I have stated. The most notable being Nelson Rockafella, whose family foundation was the prime mover in propagating feminism in The USA. The Rothschilds being the prime movers in the UK, Commonwealth and Europe.

You will note that feminism as we know it, does not exist anywhere else in the entire world even up to today.

16 January 2011 at 01:50  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

"Sayeeda Warsi is a very good egg. Everyone makes mistakes - let him that is without sin cast the first stone.
15 January 2011 21:40"


OK, lol. *WHIZZZZZZZ - THUNK!*

Alright guys, pile in (metaphorically speaking of course).

16 January 2011 at 05:46  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Atlas shrugged @ 01.50 said 'For many of them have boasted of having created feminism for the exact reasons I have stated. The most notable being Nelson Rockafella, whose family foundation was the prime mover in propagating feminism in The USA. The Rothschilds being the prime movers in the UK, Commonwealth and Europe.'

Should one conclude that feminism is the creation and tool of secretive, decadent and cosmopolitan forces?

16 January 2011 at 07:35  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Feminism is the tincture of BS. It also explains why this female get the urge to commit violence on sh*tbags like Harridan Harpyson because she drags the entire female gender into disrepute with her arrogant stupidity.

As for Warsi - she was picked by the cast iron liar Cameron, which says it all really.

16 January 2011 at 10:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Atlass shrugged @ 01.50

I agree with you - ''getting over very important FACTS on certain complicated matters using as much brevity as possible, is not an easy task''... but that doesn't mean that your pick n'mix grab at convenient strands amounts to anything more than a construct acceptable to yourself.

We 'join the dots' to form a picture; whereas in deconstructing the picture, it doesn't
necessarily allude to those self-same dots. The resultant reconstruction may be prove interesting; but does it stand?

My view of history isn't quite as traditional/facile as you seem to imagine; but I try never to fit the facts to my own design.

16 January 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous Oswin said...

bluedog @ 07:35

It does seem to ignore a whole lot of earlier British/English history re' a woman's place, pre the Norman Conquest, pre the Roman Conquest et al. But hey, what do I know?

16 January 2011 at 18:07  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Oswin @ 18.07. Atlas Shrugged has not replied but the language I used is designed to elicit a certain answer.

My current read is the History of MI6. Astonishing to learn that during the Edwardian/Great War era if a woman employed by the British Civil Service got married she was forced to resign. Clearly deleterious to the war effort. I suspect that a key factor in changing attitudes to the Emancipation of Women was economic, driven by the disasterous loss of man-power in that war.

It seems hard to sheet that dynamic home to the Elders of Zion which is what Atlas Shrugged may be inferring.

16 January 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

Unelected.

16 January 2011 at 21:02  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oswin/Bluedog -- good discussion; hope I'm not butting in where post mod 'Others' (i.e. not erstwhile Angels) fear to tread :)

I take Owsin's point to refer to stories like the leadership of Cartimandua, and Boadicea (O, I know - but BOAC-ites named the first airline computer after her)and, later, Hilda and other A-S women. I see these figures in relation to our northern tradition of producing 'strong' women (who are also ladies.

In fact, I'd argue that even some of the froggish conquering women weren't altogether behind the door --- Matilda springs to mind, and those of the line that produced Margaret Beaufort (ergo HVII). Not to forget Virginia herself. Methinks they all owed something to a situation wherein responsibility is incumbent upon the women of landed, warrior races: because their menfolk are so often either away at war, or injured by war. So, Bluedog: the women in WWI just took up their old roles as needed - it wasn't new.

16 January 2011 at 22:26  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Because you've set me wondering how/when women lost status: Part II ...
Maybe the Jacobeans, M Q of S's little boy, and their francophility, helped it along. Froggie-euro 'enlightenment' darkened our outlook.

I also can't deny pre-existing strands of 'the battle of the sexes,' because military life binds men in loyalty that sometimes turns against women. I believe homosexuality in either gender works the same way - as discrimination in a basic form.

In response, there'd been strands of continuity in which people like Austen, the Brontes, or Nightingale fought; and Victoria herself was not insignificant. So some women inherited ideas and spirit, even while many were busy producing large families (who would fight more wars). And always some good men worked with some good women.

The topic's making me question, again, the franco-german-marxist stranglehold on categorization. They force their generalisations and theories onto us as fact- but they're fallacy. i) Generalisations don't take particulars into account. ii) The empirical evidence among Britons doesn't support their theory.

For those of them who are bright enough to suspect the above, that's an excuse for re-writing history, science, and everything else. On that basis, they plant a present that is rooted in hatred between genders and implemented by foreign races.

To that end, they've exploited the Celtic/British hatred of froggish masters, whom they've falsely labelled 'English' and 'Upper Class.' Then they've fertilised the ancient anger further with a large spoonful of post-colonial hatred. And it's all represented by call-me-Dave and wot's 'er name.

Bingo euro!

16 January 2011 at 23:05  
Anonymous Oswin said...

non mouse - it is as you say, but what I really meant was the attitude to women during the Celic period, and the early to late-ish Saxon era, where women of all ages and circumstance, could be property-owners, and had distinct rights in law too.

All buggered by that Norman knob-head who spoiled everyone's party! :O}

17 January 2011 at 03:32  
Anonymous Oswin said...

One for Atlas shrugged - Mary Wollstonecraft, feminist writer and philosopher, daughter of a handkerchief weaver and NOT of a banker!

17 January 2011 at 04:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh yes, Oswin, thank you - I see. Very generous of you to be so restrained about the Bastard!!:)

17 January 2011 at 07:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older