Conspiracy Nuts FTW!

As I understand it, the latest iteration of Harriet Harperson's position is that she was working for the NCCL when they were coordinating with a paedophile group but she somehow missed the open references to legalising child abuse: in other words, she wasn't at the meeting, she was with the meeting.

To which all I can say is 'how about that paedo panic, huh'?

Yes, normal caveats apply. Spending £14 bazillion to put Basil Brush on trial for supposedly touching someone's bottom in 1974 is insane, but the people Harperson was working with were the real deal.

Ditto, while 'road to Damascus' conversions do happen, they do require you to admit that you were on the way there in the first place, rather than claim you were just taking the scenic route to Cairo.

As it is, for all Harperson might claim she didn't know nuffink guv, there is a common thread between what the NCCL believed back then, and what the same people believe right now. That's why this is such a key issue for conservatives, not just because the harassment and interdiction of paedophiles is the right thing to do (though it is) or because it's a winning issue politically (also true) but because it's a perfect insight into the left's MO.

Round around 1990 the left suddenly decided to start claiming that they totally hated paedos too, but they just wanted to fine tune things. They tried to claim they were Barnes Wallace to our Bomber Harris but the trouble was the more time went by without any actual dams being busted, the more obvious it was that these guys were all a bit Neville Chamberlain.

The rhetoric might have changed but the theme was still the same: rigid opposition to anything common sense would suggest as a way to make life harder for paedophiles. Consider this: for all the supposed excesses of the 'paedo panic' these guys can never name a case where they think the law was excessively savage to a bona fide, actual predator. It's always some guy who should never have been convicted anyway. Meanwhile, us knuckle-dragging rightists can name a barrel load of case where savages were let loose to strike again - like this:

Michael Clark, 40, was on the Sex Offenders Register and subject to official checks. But he was able to move into a city of his choosing where neighbours did not know his past.

The council considered him too dangerous to live there, but had to house him after being warned of legal action for breaching his human rights as a homeless person.

If the left could ever show as direct a connection between CO2 and climate change as the right can show between elitist liberals and murder, every conservative in the country would be biking to work. Meanwhile, the left regards a few dead bodies as the cost of doing business, but pouts and whines about 'smears' when anyone calls them out on it. 

Reality Still Has The Casting Vote

Bad as events are in Somerset, at least it's not happening in Bengal or Sligo in the 19th Century. If it had, lefties would still be writing books, plays and operas about the eviiiillll English Lord who let people's houses get flooded just so he could make the place nice for the birdies.

They should have told Lord Smith that the birds voted conservative. He'd have been hunting them down himself with a shotgun.

As it is the main question is what will happen first: the floods going down or the BBC finding a way to call Smith a right-winger. On the plus side, while Somerset is flooded, The Dave's credibility has been sunk too.

We're back to the two foundational myths of Daveism. We're told that he is a brilliant manager and a master politician. Now he's facing a political crisis caused in large part by letting a government agency go bananas, and not just through indolence but also as a matter of policy. The Cameroonatics pride themselves on their post-ideological, post-modern, ironic detachment. People with actrual convictions were dismissed as dullsville bores and accused of 'banging on' about stuff. Why bring everyone down and hash their mellow by arguing over actual policy?

That's how we ended up with a conservative PM happy to preside over a government agency headed by an Islington liberal and staffed entirely by ecoloons (but at least we've found one context where liberals think diversity is overrated). 

It turns out that ideas still matter, after all. Culture War matters. Allowing econuts to take over a government agency turns out to have been a disaster. Lives have been lost and homes wrecked as a result of allowing Metropolitan liberals to use a large part of England as a giant econut version of Sim City. If the Tories don't stand against that, in what sense are they conservative?