I have always been Labour. Since Blair, I found it hard to support them. My personal ideas have come closer to the right in that I don't agree with unfettered immigration or the lack of integration within society. I believe it is a Western problem - not only Northern European. I am increasingly frustrated with people who have no intention of ever working or achieving anything being given housing, health care and education, over and above those who do work. Particularly those who just work to live. I suspect new political parties to emerge that reflect this.
So I'm still Labour in that I believe in rights for the working class. Shame Labour forgot all about that and went very much down the identity politics route.
I also find myself struggling to see how Islam fits into Western Society - particularly hard-line Islam. We have moved on from the crusades and no longer burn witches. I find it difficult to see why we accept such behaviour in our society. In fact we often champion people of different religion as somehow more diverse - when in reality we are looked down upon by them as decadent and indeed haram.

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.

So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.

Stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions. Mmmmm
A bit like challenging the theory about how bad brexit will be, how bad man made climate change is and the minimal failures of the nhs.
Hopefully some will not fall into that trap eh wissie!

Why less so about man made climate change

This by far not the first time I have read these kind of sentiments which, for me at least, are a sad reflection of our times. Here is my perspective on why these feelings now exist.

About 11 to 12 years ago I got to spend time with a bunch of American ex pats in SE Asia. Mostly ex military, many were ex Marines. All were NRA enthusiasts and it was from them that I first heard of the possibility of Trump eventually running, which was something they supported.

What also was new for me back then was the level of mistrust in the regular news channels and the absolute belief in a large number of conspiracy theories, the most widely held being that 9/11 was a US government sponsored event and not terrorism. They had all kinds of technical reasons as to why the towers could not have been destroyed by aircraft hitting them and that a series of explosions were responsible. These theories have all been debunked many times but back then they were totally convinced of them and got stridently upset if you challenged their conclusions, let alone laughed at them.

This was, of course, well before the growth of Facebook and the rest of social media. These theories were though being spread via the internet and, in my opinion, were the precursor to today's situation.

The commercial MSM have always spun stories to suit the agendas of their owners and their readership. They can and do distort the truth through the omission of facts and the over emphasis of others. However, what they cannot do without risking legal action is to publish out and out lies. That's why they have editors and lawyers checking their content before publication.

What the non commercial MSM, and in particular the much maligned BBC, do is quite different. Editorial control is very strong and standards rigorously applied. When both the left and the right complain, as they do, that the BBC is biased I tend to think that they are doing a good job.

That though hasn't stopped many people now trusting internet "news" sources much more than the MSM. Such sources have little or no editorial control and no real fear of being taken to court, as many are untraceable and anonymous. They are therefore opinion pieces emanating from whomsoever wishes to insert their opinions into the consciousness of their readers. With the ability to target their intended market now so much easier this has opened the door to all kinds of malelevant operators seeking to influence public opinion. Political operators at home, and those abroad seeking to sow division and discontent.

So if someone is already leaning one way a little bit of bias confirmation and poisoning the well of previously trusted sources can yield substantial political results.

When the President of the USA seeks to capitalise on such things by describing the MSM as "fake news" and owes his election, at least in part, to them we can see that the political consequences are very real.

The answer will only come if and when we find a way to introduce editorial controls over internet content. There are small glimmers of hope with a few efforts at removing obvious transgressions with the anticipated squeals about "freedom of speech" already being heard. Much, much more though is needed.

It's somewhat ironic that the perpetrators of at least some of this, Russia and China, are themselves now seeking to control what people can read in their own countries.

So should we actually trust the MSM and our governments? On balance I think we can and certainly 100% more than other sources. Why? Because nothing can be kept secret in these days of investigative journalism and whistleblower protections. If people do something wrong then we will find out.

Except of course Trump is trying to intimidate the whistleblower in the impeachment trial. Calling him a "spy" and saying that in another age a spy would suffer the death penalty must be intended to frighten others with potentially damaging information. So what else has he got to hide?

Conspiracy theory of my own? Of course, but one with a great deal of verifiable evidence to support it.

These are dark days in our political life.