Nobody can accuse David Cameron of idleness. Fresh from telling the whole of Europe how to do its job, now he turns his attention to God. And in between times he has been sorting out the High Street with Mary Portas, sending in troubleshooters to sort out troubled families, not to mention having an ‘amazing triumph’ (collected wisdom of media) by pointing out that Nick Clegg is not his brother.
So I am not questioning the man’s workrate, just questioning some of the stuff that comes from his lips. I get the sense he has persuaded himself that his tantrum in Europe was the right thing to do, even as more and more business leaders, including those he sought to ‘protect’, are saying the opposite. It will take a long time to pan out, but I remain strongly of the view that he, or more importantly Britain, will live to regret it.
As for doing God, and proclaiming that Britain is a Christian country, I hope someone far better qualified in the teachings of Jesus than I will be getting out the Christometer and measuring the impact for good or bad of scrapping EMAs, pricing young people out of university, slashing funds for the voluntary sector and generally taking the country back to the more selfish values of the currently romanticised Thatcher era.
One quote in particular stood out for me in his remarks on religion. “I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith.” I don’t know about you, but I feel a certain conflict between ‘committed’ and ‘vaguely practising’. But then it seems to apply to a lot of issues. Get him on a good day and he is a committed European. Then he gets out the veto. He was once a committed environmentalist, riding with huskies, promising to lead the greenest government in history. And that went … well, we all know where that went.
In truth he is a committed Conservative who talks progressive when it suits him and acts conservative pretty much all of the time.
Enough for now, I am a committed and more than vaguely practising Burnley fan, and must be setting off for Brighton shortly. May your Gods go with you.
Had Cameron advocated religion as the solutuon 200 or even 100 years ago it may have had some
resonance, but the UK has the 4th lowest rate of Church attendance in
Europe and its numbers of attendees has been in decline for decades. In
short, the vast majority of people don’t listen to religious leaders in
the UK, whether it be the local vicar or the Archbishop. It’s just yet
another lame Cameron soundbyte.
Someone interviewing him in the near future, if pre-briefed allowed, and should ask him some deep theological question, since it seems he is going down this tick-box line.
For instance, if we are a Christian society, do you think the protestors, who were asking for refuge at St. Paul’s, were treated Christian correctly?
And then wait for his spindrift woolly answer from his mouth, boring us to death with waffle, as usual.
re. previous, sanctuary rather than refuge at St. Paul’s I should have wrote – more powerful word in minds.
Many of the “united front of 26” are rowing back from the “united against Cameron” group, now they realise the powers they will be giving away if such a treaty were to be ratified. Please confirm Labour’s/Ed squared’s position(s).
Are you going to get your Christometer out and run it over the Bush/Blair warmongering in Iraq? What a short memory you have.
You are on thin ice when you start inviting clerics to comment on social policy, as most of them would not recognise any government’s need to prioritise………..and preferably not spend money they do not have!
I suggest that a high per centage of the population might subscribe to Cameron’s “I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith” stance.
Labour had dropped in the merde as you have no policies. Sitting, thumb in bum is not working. Priorities? Green v Overseas Aid?
Why is Labour not howling for the scrappage of Trident? Re-shaping priorities would be ground on which to be attracting new support.
You are whistling in the dark, Al, constantly having a go at Cameron. He is public school, so was Tony, perhaps their education contributed to their success.
An analysis of the failing Labour leadership would be more constructive.
“Labour had dropped in the merde…..” is that something from Inspector Clouseau?
We are a secular country that leaves it free for people of any religion or none to live how they believe is right. I wish Cameron knew his place and stayed in it.
Christopher Hitchens is a huge loss and was a much kinder practitioner of atheism than Richard Dawkins even wants to be
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/dawkins-hitchens-catholic
Must have spoken to your mate Blair then
Hypocrisy is the question here, whether you feel for the poorest man and woman on your streets, or not.
Answer that for yourself with reference to Dave and his modern day Tory Party.
We need to educate them. Dave, the pink parts are gone, and aristocracy is naturally disappearing. BUT, don’t get me wrong, we love our Queen, and will be happy no doubt for modification for strength, and to Charlie, sorry Carlo – sorry, got it wrong again, Charles, but especially to Wills and Katie bach – come into my arms….. gush.
What were we talking about again, oh yes British queens, who was on the back of our 1d penny coin before pre-decimalisation, Queen Boudicca, who tried shaking hands with the c***ing Romans, and paid for it – the barsteward imperialists! SONG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym9VOtYpKOY
Tony Blair talked about his own religiosity, I’m not aware he ever described the country as Christian and has gone to great lengths in recent years to remind everyone that Jerusalem is the common property of the three ‘major’ religions.
He has also described religion as “a source of so much inspiration; an excuse for so much evil”.
I don’t want Cameron speaking for me and I don’t believe any country should declare itself a state based on religion; that goes for Israel as much as it does for Iran.
The world and every piece of land predates any religion.
“In truth he is a committed conservative who talks progressive when it suits him and acts conservative pretty much all of the time”.
That’s because he is a conservative
Western civilisation is based on Christianity and ancient Greece.
Serious scientists know that science cannot explain all puzzels of our existence.
Scientific theories come and go as new information comes to play or old is explained in a new way.
Science can only offer us partial or relative truth – not the whole truth.
Richard Dawkins has said that our origins are explained by the theory of evolution or by a theory we are not yet aware of.
Even he says that Jesus might have actully lived. And that there just may be God but this is very unlikely.
Ludwig Wittgenstein saw religion as a language game. The Bible does not say that it should be read literally.
The God of philosophers does not exist. But living God of Christianity does.
Wittgenstein rejected the idea that belief must rest on philosophical foundation.
Energy, information anad consciousness may in fact be the real basic stuff of the cosmos.
Some claim that religion is an evolutionary phenomenon. But if blind evolution put us here, we, of course, cannot trust what our brains and science tell us.
Methodological naturalism is not based on any proven facts. Its basic idea is just a postulate.
Science is only a picture of reality. It is not reality itself.
Miracles are a proof of God. Design in nature is a proof of God. Fulfilled prophecy is a proof of God.
Kirkegaard understood that when faced with choice in life, no amount of knowledge can resolve the dilemma. We must make a jump of faith into unknown.
Science cannot tell whether God does exist or not. It is a category mistake to try to involve God in a scientific theory.
God is outside time and place. We cannot have direct scientific knowledge about Him.
God has revealed Himself through nature and the Bible. Jesus said in John´s gospel that “I am the truth”.
Not only is Christianity true, but Jesus is the TRUTH!
Reason is fallible. Intellect can only take us so far.
Faith is needed. But faith is not simply a question of rational choice.
Faith is a mystery – a gift from God. According to William James something is true if it works. This is called pragmatism. And Christianity works as millions can testify.
There is not enough evidence to decide whether something is true.
Religious conversion causes a revolution in the personality.
WK Clifford claimed that it was wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
James wanted a philosophy that rested on experience not logic because life exceeds logic.
Science can tell us “how”, but it cannot answer “why”.
The “United Front of 26″did not throw their toys out of the pram straight away like Cameron,but wisely refrained from comment until they knew more about what was proposed.
The “Bush/Blair warmongering” you describe started only after nearly 3000 innocent people were murdered on the streets of New York on 9/11.
Brilliant caller early in Any Answers this afternoon put all this so rightly; Christianity does not have a monopoly on good beliefs.
Another said that someone called Jesus ( the bloke that tagged ‘Christ’ on to himself) was born in to a Pagan country, I daresay Jewish listeners were surprised by that! Perhaps that caller was thinking about what our islands’ inhabitants used to believe in before Christianity was imposed on it by rampaging killers and rapists?
There’s something quite immoral in everything good being ascribed to its
having been inspired by religion whether that’s generosity, art or
architecture. Must say though that for non-religious reasons I do regret that we have lost Sunday closures; there used to be a day every week when nearly everybody was available to meet nearly everybody else and we’ve lost out re that (traipsing around shopping malls now being regarded as ‘entertainment’).
My favourite football chant is the one that visiting fans used to chant at the Brighton supporters: “Does your boyfriend know you’re here?”
It’s a great example of something that is funny without being homophobic……..and I say that as a gay man.
I think what Cameron means by ‘committed’ but ‘vaguely practicing’ is that he finds it politically astute to identify himself with ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ – aka The Church of England – but in his heart of hearts he has no particular interest in Christianity in general (which he certainly does not practice – but then who does?) and the Anglican Church in particular. Hypocrisy has always been a keyword of Toryism because the Conservative Party is essentially the party of those who inherit wealth and unelected power, but they have to make a show of being on the side of the poor and in favour of democracy – otherwise nobody would be fool enough to vote for them.
In his interview with Richard Dawkins in the current ‘New Statesman’, Christopher Hitchens is quoted as saying, ‘I have one consistency, which is (being) against the totalitarian – on the left and the right’. Apparently this is why he supported Margaret Thatcher’s policy of taking back the Falkland Islands after the Argentinian invasion in 1982 – it would lead to the fall of the dictatorial Argentinian junta, as it did. But Margaret Thatcher was aided and abetted by General Pinochet’s Chilean dictatorship, and this proved useful many years later when Pinochet was in danger of having to face up to his crimes against humanity. I think Christopher Hitchens was being very naive and very inconsistent relative to totalitarianism, and I can’t understand why people are making such a big thing about him just because he’s died. It sounds as if he was the toast of a particular metropolitan literary clique – Ian McEwen, Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and the like – but comparing him to Voltaire and Orwell is excessive, to say the least. I gather he must have been a member of the International Socialists about the same time as me, but I can’t remember him, whereas I can remember other people on the National Committee like Paul Foot, Tony Cliff, Duncan Hallas, Sabby Sagall, Lionel Sims, Richard Kuper, Chris Harman, Peter Sedgwick (Hitchen’s mentor), Ian Birchall, Mike Kidron, Logie Barrow, Martin Shaw, Jim Higgins, Richard Kirkwood, Mike Caffoor and others.
Cameron is a lightweight who is out of his depth. Hopefully he’ll be found out sooner rather than later
Then it would be useful if he would stop talking progressive – it does con a lot of people, as is its intention.
Thank goodness Cameron only does God and the High Street. One of his recent predecessors did God and Iraq.
Alastair… by your own admission you know nothing about economics. (See blog entry about sitting next to the banker on the plane.)
And your dear leader, in yet another laughable, beyond parody performance on the Andrew Marr show, said of the Euro that “The political case for it was clear, its just the economics that didn’t work out.”
Just the economics! Yes I remember a bet I made on my girlfriends friends greyhound once, of which the same could be said.
Tony Blair was wrong of course, in more ways than usual.
The best that could be said of the Euro, would be that it might force all the rubbish countries (lets be honest) ie everyone except Germany, to behave more like Germany and maintain: 1. low debt, 2. a strong currency and 3. the high exports that follow 1 and 2. (I know your heads are exploding but check Germany’s economic historical evidence, then come back when you agree with me.)
In reality of course the best method to do that is not cooperation but the one that made Europe great – competition. Countries were more likely to copy Germany as Germany streaked ahead of them. Not as it drags them with it.
In reality this was always going to mean fiscal union, being ruled by Germany. So it was undemocratic. Therefore it was also a political problem.
Cameron’s veto will not cause disaster in Europe, nor in this country. It is his centre left big government Keynesian policies that will cause the next stage of the disaster in this country. (He didn’t cause the first stage.)
Cameron a committed conservative! He’s the least conservative tory leader since the 1970s… and we’ve had John Major in that time!
Committed conservatives cut taxes and raise interest rates, just so you know.
Alastair, what is Christian about taxing people who have not been to university, or who will not go to university, to pay for those who will go to university?
One thing I can’t grasp in modern politics is how labour went from sticking up for the working man to sticking up for, of all people, students?!
On this I’m with Andy Burnham “We talk a lot about the kids going to university, but I want to talk about the kids who don’t go to university.”
On universities, social conservatives want to preserve our learning in everything from poetry to art etc – see David Mitchell for the full explanation.
Economic conservatives want university to be cheaper, both for the student and the taxpayer. The means to do this is counterintuitive, but effective. It is to end government subsidising of student loans. I’ll explain it in the next post.
What a conservative would do on tuition fees:
Stop government backed student loans. Students would have to raise their own money to go to uni. Of course, some have rich parents who could subsidise them – this happens now and would still happen in the new system.
Most would have to get part time jobs etc and perhaps see if they could get a private loan. The bank would look at the candidates scores, and choice of course, and determine the likelihood that they would pay it back and reward it accordingly. So someone with 3 As going to study accountancy would get a bigger loan than someone with 2 cs going to study golf course management.
If I leave the argument here, be honest, what is your answer? Yes of course its “So then only the rich could go university!”
Well, no. The overall amount of funding for university courses would be smaller. Would all our unis shut down? Would our lecturers go and get real jobs? Pull the other one! They would do what anyone does under such market pressure – they’d drop the prices. Especially for things like golf course management BSc.
Students would only study and pay for courses that will help them get a job.
Then you’ll say “Well, only the rich could go to Oxbridge”. Really? Don’t they want to retain their academic excellence and compete for the best students? They would give scholarships to bright students who can’t pay. They might earn money by teaching soft course purely for money (like Harvard and George Bush) – again, they do already.
End result – those who go to uni would have a better chance of getting a job, and they’d have less, or in most cases no, debt.
I’m sure you’ll all agree.
I don’t think there are many decisions one can take DS that will be perceived as 100% right by everybody and obviously that shouldn’t stop anyone saying what they think is right even if colleagues don’t agree. To say what will be approved of by every audience would require one to say different things here and there.
Being anti-totalitarian (whether re rightist or leftist regimes) seems bog standard to me. Tariq Ali has a different opinion to mine (he won’t know that ho-ho-ho) and displayed like a true bitch when commenting on CH’s death on Friday evening. I’m not sure what you find naive about CH’s general antipathy re totalitarianism, as he said – from the left or the right. So he was no longer 100% socialist whereas TA claims to be – I’m not sure how many more people have been enlightened about anything by TA vs CH? The latter’s series of debates with an American rabbi a couple of years ago were great viewing, all the moreso as CH had discovered in adulthood that his mother was Jewish (which, in orthodoxy, makes him Jewish for life whether he liked it or not).
The Falklands situation was urgent and needed immediate response. The invasion was insane and frightening for the islanders, the fact that they lived only 300m from Argentina but the islands had never been found or occupied by A., along with the inhabitants having never requested independence or being ceded to their nearer neighbours meant UK had to act. All the hindsight about Chile and Reagan etc is just that. I think Thatcher was a war criminal re the Belgrano but that’s nothing to do with this convo.
If by that time CH had lost his commitment to the left because some years ago some prominent UK lefties had agreed with the Vietnam war well, what’s for you to so violently disagree with there?
It’s about a man that’s died a horrible death fgs so your ‘just beacause he’s died’ sounds callous and your ‘metropolitan literary clique’ unworthy. Have you ever read an issue of Vanity Fair, even at the library? It covers hard news as well as glamour, it’s not a typical US-based glam mag and I’m glad that so many British are so successful over there. I don’t believe in segregation or that a Leftie must work in public service to be regarded as true. I don’t think I’ve ever had even a Leftie colleague! never mind boss; work’s always involved a lot of ‘discussions’.
My original post in this cache was about CH’s attitude as an atheist vs RD’s as I don’t think I’ve ever seen such arrogance as the latter displayed in Jerusalem when talking down to poor peasants who happened to believe all the value of earlier pedestrians on the Via Dolorosa. Just saying like …..
……..”perhaps their education contributed to their success”…..
or learning how to deal with inbred snobbery from an early age?
I think Cameron’s quote suggests he is an ‘armchair’ Christian in the way that some people are ‘armchair footie fans’. This suggest to me that he does the big ‘Grandstand’ occasions Christmas (FA Cup Final), Easter (League Cup Final) Weddings, Funerals and Christenings (league fixtures that someone got you a ticket for) but most of the time he has no idea who is in the team and only a basic understanding of the rules.
His broader premis that Christian values should under pin our approach to society as a whole rings hollow. Can’t see much that is Christian about terrorising disabled people with attacks on DLA and benefits; Don’t really think his conduct in Europe resonates with ‘Love thy neighbour’ and can’t see how anything he does fits with anything other than wanting to shirk his responsibility for the mess we’re in.
I think Cameron’s quote suggests he is an ‘armchair’ Christian in the way that some people are ‘armchair footie fans’. This suggest to me that he does the big ‘Grandstand’ occasions Christmas (FA Cup Final), Easter (League Cup Final) Weddings, Funerals and Christenings (league fixtures that someone got you a ticket for) but most of the time he has no idea who is in the team and only a basic understanding of the rules.
His broader premis that Christian values should under pin our approach to society as a whole rings hollow. Can’t see much that is Christian about terrorising disabled people with attacks on DLA and benefits; Don’t really think his conduct in Europe resonates with ‘Love thy neighbour’ and can’t see how anything he does fits with anything other than wanting to shirk his responsibility for the mess we’re in.
Hasn’t Cameron also ‘done’ Libya along with hitching himself to those two bandwagons that I think he’s actually totally unfamiliar with?
There are only two esses in gormless btw.
Hasn’t Cameron also ‘done’ Libya along with hitching himself to those two bandwagons that I think he’s actually totally unfamiliar with?
There are only two esses in gormless btw.
Snobbery is such an old fashioned concept……and Blair was a snob? Most people who accuse others of snobbery suffer from a well placed inferiority complex.
Snobbery is such an old fashioned concept……and Blair was a snob? Most people who accuse others of snobbery suffer from a well placed inferiority complex.
“….Hypocrisy has always been a keyword of Toryism ……….” .”…..the party of those who inherit wealth and unelected power….” “……on the side of the poor and in favour of democracy…” etc etc
You should wake up, and not rely on party material used in the 1959 general election, the country has moved on and the electorate have wised up to your dogma. (c.f. latest opinion polls.)
“….Hypocrisy has always been a keyword of Toryism ……….” .”…..the party of those who inherit wealth and unelected power….” “……on the side of the poor and in favour of democracy…” etc etc
You should wake up, and not rely on party material used in the 1959 general election, the country has moved on and the electorate have wised up to your dogma. (c.f. latest opinion polls.)
‘I’m not sure what you find naive about CH’s general antipathy re totalitarianism, as he said – from the left or the right.’
Because the Pinochet regime was a bit totalitarian too and Pinochet was an ally of Thatcher’s who she later rewarded in his time of difficulty. For an ex-member of the International Socialists I find CH’s position staggeringly naive, whichever way he’d moved politically, left or right. It’s similar with his support for the Iraq invasion – what about all those other dictatorships in the Middle East, and if he thought Saddam posed a serious threat to the West, does he think it would have escaped the attention of Mossad? Incidentally people joined the International Socialists precisely because they were anti-totalitarian, left or right (‘Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism’), so at least CH was consistent in theory, if not in practice.
‘I’m not sure what you find naive about CH’s general antipathy re totalitarianism, as he said – from the left or the right.’
Because the Pinochet regime was a bit totalitarian too and Pinochet was an ally of Thatcher’s who she later rewarded in his time of difficulty. For an ex-member of the International Socialists I find CH’s position staggeringly naive, whichever way he’d moved politically, left or right. It’s similar with his support for the Iraq invasion – what about all those other dictatorships in the Middle East, and if he thought Saddam posed a serious threat to the West, does he think it would have escaped the attention of Mossad? Incidentally people joined the International Socialists precisely because they were anti-totalitarian, left or right (‘Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism’), so at least CH was consistent in theory, if not in practice.
Like it all reaguns! Slight problem vis a vis Germany and the ‘rest’, the German model aims to export high value items such as machinery and cars whereas the southern European countries export olives, tomatoes and fruit. They ain’t got a lot going for them versus Germany.
Like it all reaguns! Slight problem vis a vis Germany and the ‘rest’, the German model aims to export high value items such as machinery and cars whereas the southern European countries export olives, tomatoes and fruit. They ain’t got a lot going for them versus Germany.
It’s easy to always criticise DS and it’s only easy to do if also shrugging off the duty to decide and admit which was the worst of two evils and neither/nor just isn’t always possible.
If you think that it would have been better to leave Saddam, Chemical Ali and decades-old UN sanctions in place in Iraq then your jab about that conflict is legitimate.
You don’t ‘confess’ that belief. Many believe that turning the other cheek would have been the right thing to do.
We’re now faced with an even bigger pile of unknown unknowns in all the mid-East than critics re Iraq and its post-war plan rambled on about. I’m not sure whether turning the other cheek re Libya would have been right (but I do think this govt’s action was idealogical and not for the people).
However, off topic yet again. BFN
I don’t see how anyone claiming to have even half a brain can deny that someone actually wanting to be part of a clique like the Bulliboys has a nasty streak.
However Rich, I know toadies like yourself feel there’s something honourable about deferring to those that believe themselves their superiors. Feel free to lick anyone’s boots that you wish to, I don’t have that peculiarity.
“Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism”
Heh heh heh, I love this quote! Absolutely brilliant. Its like saying
“Neither Left or Right, but Norman Tebbit!”
“Neither Tory or Labour, but Labour!”
I suspect the real international socialists, ie the USSR, loved the quote even more than me.
(Presuming by southern europe we are thinking of greece more than italy.)
That’s true, Greece is not Germany and it will not be Germany whether in or out of the Euro.
I think it would be better if Greece had its own freedom. Then if the people wanted to be wealthy like the germans they could start doing things that germans do like working longer. Or if they would prefer more time off, time to enjoy their southern climate, they could, without having austerity forced upon them.
Outside the euro they couldn’t have borrowed all that money, and so couldn’t have got into all this trouble.
So they should default – which is what any good left-winger or right-winger will say. But not the centrists.
Most upsetting was the referendum being slapped down. That would have given them the only two choices they have: Euro plus austerity, or Default plus the consequences of that. Either would be a lot easier to do with a democratic mandate behind it.
Terrible that democracy was assassinated in its own birthplace.
Spot on Dave. The hypoctical ‘hug a hoodie’ approach was all about addressing public distaste for the nasty party. A quick analysis of their policies gives a clear reminder that nothing has changed.
Taking on the EU and talking up Christianity are merely to distract us and (they hope) increase Cameron’s poll ratings.
Alastair, I don’t know if you’re intending to revamp your blog any time soon, but in case you are, could I make a little suggestion?
A + or – button could be added next to each contributor’s name. Anyone who does not want to read the right wing, idiotic and often offensive comments written by say Richard, Chris Lancashire or Pam, could click the – button to remove what are sure to be silly or rather pointless remarks.
I’m sure this would make my daily review of your excellent blog far more enjoyable. Just a thought!
In 1959 Macmillan was talking about Britain being a classless society, as was John Major in 1992. Nothing has moved much in the last half century as regards the Conservative Party, including the gullibility of supporters like you. I’m not sure which opinion polls you are referring to – probably imaginary ones – but opinion polls forecast a Labour victory in June 1970 and some of us have been around long enough to assess their value on that basis. I rest my case.
Absolute rot as usual. There is such a thing as snobbery, and you don’t need an inferiority complex to be aware of it. It certainly is old-fashioned but that doesn’t make it obsolete – unfortunately. Affectation of superiority and a fawning adulation of those perceived to be superior is alive and kicking, and I would concede that we’re all guilty to some extent. Why is ‘Downton Abbey’ so popular?
In the beginning
was the word until schumks like yourself thought they had a better idea. No
mind. And I think DC’s expression of faith will stand him in good stead. As for
you, as you say ‘you are a Burnley fan and must set off to Brighton’. I am so
tempted to use the word burn as it seems so appropriate, but I afraid I will
set myself on fire too.
Des Currie
I do appreciate the quality of info you provide here.I have most
certainly learned much from your posts and the comments people make in
reply.
Confused, I still don’t know how you can be both a Con and a Christian. Am I missing something in both belief systems? The sheer hypocracy is breathtaking.
I know this – Cons are often fat cats in this world and they want to be fat cats in the next.
Boy! That’s like having a dustbin emptied over your head!
It seems the media has fed on Christopher Hitchens passing away in the last week – that certain part of the media, that is. Have heard of him, and have listened to what he has had to say over the years, but to me his views were slightly too fashionable, in the abverse polite chattering way.
As you say, George Orwell, who lived his uncomfortableness with life around him then, and has and will stand the test of time.
And with the Falklands, it seemed a game of chess was well going on before the invasion, so the question is this, were the junta bluffed into invasion? And the Chile business must leave a shameful taste in the mouth in those diplomatically involved. And totalitarianism to some is ok, as long as it is not 100% in this country – not in my back yard, type of thing. But the 1980’s must have been the highest percentage of “thought police” state intervention in this country in the last century, outside World Wars, you could say, if such a figure could be calculated, and released as fact.
My first reply didn’t seem to get posted…I’ll try again…
Yes its true the southern countries can’t compete at present with germany, that part is true whether they are in the euro or not. Outside of the euro they have a choice whether to work like germany and get wealthy like germany, or to take more time off to enjoy their nicer climate and lifestyle. Inside the euro they will have the austerity without the wealth I think.
You don’t seem to understand the nuance about ‘inbred’ snobbery Rich.
It’s often owned by a person that (yes, that) was reared to feel superior to others due to wealth achieved by ancestors; nothing to do with their own achievements.
I doubt ‘our’ pm’s mother was proud of him when he used her as a tool to mock Harriet Harman with but who’s to know ?
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the socialist movement or the meaning of socialism, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to dismiss it with such smug self-assurance as totalitarian state control. The Daily Mail and Thatcher eat out on people like you.
The question is – which kind of bin? Black (general), green (paper) or blue (tins and bottles)?
obverse way I meant, the other side of the coin, but adverse was also in my mind, so I subliminally combined it, in my mind, it seems….
It’s as well we know what’s out there Janiete; blogs that are post-moderated and operate with Report functions end up being one note when the leftie (and it’s always the leftie) content is removed.
Thankfully lefties just get up and post again, the rightists if silenced could well all turn in to Travis Bickle types!
Am not even sure what to make of an apparent threat of hellfire and damnation on this thread but it’s as well it could be spewed out …. I think 🙁
I’m not suggesting we remove their right to post absolute twaddle but the option for readers to ‘minimize’ them would be helpful.
Rather like choosing not to read the Daily Mail or ensuring tories don’t find their way onto your twitter timeline!
What a free thinking debater you are Janiete. A Michael Foot girl by any chance? I bet you were unhappy with the concept of “New Labour”, modernising and making electable a Party going nowhere. That was achieved by debate, not whingeing that people who do not share 100% your ideas should be identified as dissenters and barred.
Having re-read your contributions over the months, they are rather light on ideas and rather heavy on ” I agree with ……” If you could take some time out over Xmas and give us some of your ideas that would be of great interest to us all.
Oh by the way, to the right, (that is -> -> -> )
there is a mechanism to scroll the page downwards, when you see any of those bad peoples names , and then you will not have to read their drivel etc. (To read such posts would take so much time out of your hectic schedule we appreciate.)
(It is more proof, if proof were needed that the people who invented these computer things were Tories as they had to put the damned scroll button on the RIGHT.)
Your wish to “minimize” them suggests the Gulag approach; off. to North Korea with you.
I think they are all as bad as each other and when it suits they all use whatever to feather thier own nests and mnake themselves look good. People take it all in so good look to them.I do not trust any of them
Hello Alistair, I read with interest your blog of satire and tongue in cheek above, much of which is reasonable in the circumstances.
I would like like to ask a question if I may, in the hope I may get reply.
In your earlier days one would assume your heart lay in journalism and media and political aspirations were perhaps a blip on the horizon. You became very successfull at what you did.
What advice would give to any individual, whose heart lies in politics, who has acheived much in terms of representation at a local level, in making a giant step towards success at a higher level in politics.
Apart from annoying people with the truth.
Richard we all know you don’t visit this blog for debate. You come here to insult, ridicule and spout silly, naive political views.
Just in case anyone thinks you are sincere in your desire for a reasonable exchange of views, here is a sample of level of debate you have in mind:
Get over yourself, hen
It is all Balls!
Two Jags
thumb in bum
Mr MaHead
Red Ed
your delusions are transparent!
stick to your knitting
If you find yourself sober one morning
stop making an arse of yourself.
my point precisely, der!
You represent the reason why people do not take women in polittics seriously
Nurse, ……. is out of bed again!
You are so full of ****.
you are foaming at the mouth. Have you had your rabies jab?
I have told you a thousand times!
Pick the bones out of that Al,
A little hung over from last week are we still, dear
Geddit?
Keep hammering the scrumpy
Nurse, …….. hasn’t taken his tablets again.
The most obvious large polluted storage area is in your gob!
Try me. I used to not understand socialism when I thought it meant “nice people helping the poor”, or even “the poor grouping together to help each other” both of which are ideas I’m fine with – but they are not socialism. What do you say socialism is? I’ve had my experiences of it as well as done my reading in it, developing respect for certain members of the movement.
You equate socialism with the kind of bureaucratic state control and collectivism that exists in North Korea. It was originally about creating a system whereby everyone could develop to the full with equal opportunity.
Your powers of analysis are very limited.(However it is refreshing to realise that you follow my postings so closely. And you were appealing to Al to get a means whereby you would not have to read them! )
If you were to analyse the contributions of others you would find far more insulting language, punctuated with much profanity. But that is fine because you agree with Ehtch!
PS It is obvious that you have not experienced face to face debate in clubs, university and the like where humour is used as an aid to punctuate the debate. Your analysis of my being right wing is also nonsense, and I am not a conservative voter. I am well to the left of TB.
I think we can agree that most socialists have good intentions.
And that North Korea or USSR is far from what they have in mind.
I just agree with those who say that socialism makes it easier for a North Korean style regime to exist, because it usually involves taking power off the people and giving it to the state.
I think America has helped more poor people than Sweden, Germany or USSR.
And I never meet anyone who really wants equality, when I spell out what equality would mean. Its no use having economic equality only.