SATURDAY ESSAY: Why hating the other lot might mean tolerating a thoroughly bad lot.

I was stretched out on the sofa at 9 pm last night, killing time until Have I Got News for You came on, when a trailer for the programme told me that it was going to be chaired by Alistair Campbell. So I went to bed. The HIGNFY panellists being funny – even at his expense – could never be enough to make me want to watch more than a few seconds of that truly horrible man.

Campbell gets a good airing from the TV media, despite his unconstitutional bullying of them during the Iraq War. Being on the ‘liberal progressive’ side, you see, he’s alright, and should be left alone. All can be forgiven if you are a good person “underneath it all”. For the same reason, I read in horror the week before as various middling-to-liberal press titles gushed in their appreciation of Tony Blair’s ‘masterclass’ at the Leveson enquiry. The bloke is a delusional, sanctimonious sociopath who has perjured himself the length and breath of every enquiry in London, and undermined the rule of Law in Britain like no Prime Minister before him.

The same was also true of Brown: but how awful we all were to suggest he was suicidally depressed and almost blind – how could we very dare to ask if he was fit to have his finger on the nuclear button?

This week, I’ve read – here at The Slog – and elsewhere – those who despise Labour defending the disgusting Jeremy Hunt, in precisely the manner they did for Murdoch, Brooks, Coulson and The Sun throughout 2010 and 2011. It beggars belief given his form as a ‘businessman’, hypocrite – and then Culture Minister – but some folks are determined to believe the man. And that is the right verb: determined.

Once upon a time, I collared the late Philip Gould about Mandelson. I didn’t know Philip well (we’d met briefly years before when we were both in entrepreneurial ad agencies) and I have never rated his strategic mind: but Lord Gould, as he became, was a decent human being who died with incredible dignity. We had the most surreal conversation about Manglesum, in that Gould kept telling me how only ‘focused propagandists’ like Mandy “are ever going to get the Tories out”….by which, I suggested, he meant ‘pathologically ruthless liars’.

I’m not puzzled by the infinite ability of partisan citizens to turn a blind eye, because that’s exactly what it is: pretending not to notice that one is dealing with a turd, on the entirely spurious grounds that the smelly jobby “is a damned sight preferable to the other lot”. Is that as high as our ambitions for political quality go? Well, yes – I suppose it is these days, actually.

Boris Johnson is another case in point. A womanising, puffed-up bully with a furious temper (and a foul mouth to go with it) when crossed, he is lauded by the Tory Right as their potential saviour. While his opponent in last month’s London Mayoral election, Ken Livingdead, is another darling of the Left: a putschist, Stalinist, mealy-mouthed turncoat who championed the IRA and encouraged Islamism before he became Mayor…and then went straight for the patriot vote after the London bombings in 2005.

And that George Galloway, eh – isn’t he a lovable scamp? No actually, the bloke is a nasty piece of work with a far from explicable past in relation to Libya – an extremist who manipulates British Islamism for his own ends. And right at the top there’s Dave – much misunderstood, such a nice chap when you meet him, heart’s in the right place and all that. Bollocks: he is a privilege freak with a serial penchant for amoral buddying.

I’ll stop now before a political gargoyle somewhere talks to a website executive gargoyle somewhere else about my ‘hate blogging’. The point should anyway be clear by now: I am not remotely interested in shamelessly defending the shamefully indefensible, just because the rat-fink concerned “is one of us”. That way lies hoping that Hitler will obliterate Stalin, or voting for Obama cos ‘e is black.

These are real historical parallels, not hysterical ones. Without a German bourgeois loathing for Communism, Adolf Hitler would never have made it to the German Chancellery, and the Falangists would not have triumphed in 1930s Spain. The toleration of a necessary evil is every bit as bad as Brecht’s happiness with the Good Lie of Szechuan. If your holistic belief system is sound in the first place, then evil is never necessary: it is merely another version of the ends justifying the means.

What I’m really writing about here is the subject I touched on last week: politics going well beyond the robust partisan, and on into divisive hatred.

There was a good example last Thursday when two Leftwing chaps got into a spat on Twitter with Dan Hannan, and (unusually for him) he replied in kind. Sarcastic putdowns of poor logic are the meat and drink of healthy politics, but personal savagery should be restricted to the lost souls against whom I was fulminating several paragraphs ago. And every time one indulges in it, further self-inquiry should ask whether it is really called for: some of the bile splattered over Ted Heath’s reputation in recent years has been pretty awful, but then hardline Thatcherite robots are no better than Left Labour’s spitting adders. Ted was a naive old Queen, but his aims were often admirable.

That the syndrome is on the increase in Britain is hard to deny, and although most of it used to be in the ‘new’ viral media, it is creeping into the old school more and more. The Sun has always been ineluctably nasty about The Other Lot, and the Dacre Mail is unspeakable in its appeal to the knuckle-draggers, but the Telegraph is getting Icepickitis as well nowadays, The Mirror’s political stuff is increasingly class-warrior drivel, and The Times reads more like the thinking man’s Sun with every week.

It happens for all kinds of reasons: unelected, non-dom, twisted proprietors, polemic fascism, ignorance, too much right-brain egomania….but above all, in my view, because of a lack of respect for the other side of the argument.

In turn, there are two reasons for that. First, those offering up that argument in contemporary politics are frequently undeserving of respect – Andrew Lansley being a good example; and second, those opposing it most vociferously wouldn’t respect Lansley if he was Albert Einstein – Dr Eoin Clarke, for all his many excellent instincts, is in turn a good personification of that.

If you’re a bigot faced with idiots opposing you, mutual respect is impossible. Without mutual respect, there can be no genuine democracy.

Hating the other lot often means loving a bad lot. With the British Communist Party, hatred of the 1930s National Government led to inexcusable support for all things Soviet, from the Nazi Pact in 1939 to Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and beyond. If we aren’t careful, hatred of anyone suggesting a Third Way* for the NHS could lead to Prime Minister Johnson championing a rapacious US-style insurance system; and hatred of all things Labour may just as easily result in Prime Minister Harman offering affirmative feminist action as the answer to systemic fiscal meltdown.

* By this I mean a mutualised solution.

If you found this piece interesting, you will probably also like Keeping money out of politics

About The Slog

72 thoughts on “SATURDAY ESSAY: Why hating the other lot might mean tolerating a thoroughly bad lot.

  1. Ted Heath knowingly and intentionally lied repeatedly to the British electorate. Now I know they all lie, but Heath lied about an issue which in time, given success would actually remove this country from the map. He felt it was ok to lie about that. It is impossible to be too hard on him.

    • Quite. He was, in my view, the most disastrous PM of the twentieth century; against strong competition for that wooden spoon.

    • This opening post does somewhat endorse what that nice Mr Ward was railing against.

      Can’t we adopt the ‘Bitchez’ opener popularised elsewhere?

    • Ted Heath AKA Mr Eddy in childrens homes around Hampstaed Heath had an unhealthy interest in young boys also a cuprophiliac & Deutsches Verteidigungs Dienst DVD agent and traitor.
      In Britain Macmillan, Wilson and Heath were all DVD assets, hence their enthusiasm for the UK joining the EU, aka the German Sphere of Influence.
      The DVD was set up by German spymaster Admiral Wilhelm Canaris in 1943/4, after he appreciated that Germany was going to lose the war. He and his deputy, GeneralLeutnant Erwin von Lahousen were determined that Germany would win the peace, which to date she has done. They started moving files, gold, officers and other stuff down to Dachau from Berlin as early as the fall of 1943. Nazis were not invited. The DVD are not and never have been Nazi – these were the boys who installed the Nazis, and they were a lot smarter.
      … Allegedly

      • @BT
        Watch this series….

        A few ambiguities in it (OB-L already dealt with) but of course there is no evidence that even this is not true…..

        Though I do not like conspiracy theories………….a lot of it could be true or a lot of it could be egotistical blather.

        Make of it what you will – there is lots to think about – especially that fact that there is now only 1 true big no no – which is unacceptable to modern society !

      • @Morningstar: Thanks for that video. I’ve watched the first two vids in the series and will watch the others later on. For other readers, the full list of 1-12 can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+shrimpton&oq=michael+shr&aq=6&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_l=youtube.1.6.0l10.1197.9981.0.13814.11.8.0.3.3.0.110.812.2j6.8.0…0.0.QiDCdMXFw5k Interesting stuff :-)

        Insofar as Germany is concerned….I’m not so sure if it all amounts to a conspiracy theory per se. I’ve been aware for some time of claims that Hitler was installed by shadowy people in Germany to create a new German corporatist empire by military means. When he failed, the plan continued peacefully in secret. That doesn’t surprise me. This is the role that Shrimpton says is still run by German Intelligence which was not dismantled after WWII. Whether this will lead to WWIII between Germany and Anglo-Saxons is hard to say.
        It places Germany in a similar position today to other mercantilist empires like America, China and Japan. What’s interesting is they’re all corporatist (fascist) and any war that breaks out will not be between different ideologies – as us plebs will be told – but between variations of the same fascist ideology, which is of course totalitarian. The Left always ends up fighting among itself for supremacy. And it raises the issue of the European Union and the stated aim of its founding fathers: to keep Germany in line. What we see today under Murky is Germany trying to impose its will on other EZ members. She may be a puppet of the shadowy figures and this may be why she is unable to take bold decisions to solve the EZ crises: because it would seriously set back the greater German plan.

      • @WfD: Yeah …I posted back to @Morningstar in a later thread and said that I’d come to the conclusion that Shrimpton’s a conspiracy nutter. According to him German Intel are responsible for just about every dirty deed that happens in the world, including the kidnapping of Maddy McCane. And he said that Britain & Russia will be at war with Germany by Spring 2012! Did I miss it? ;-)

      • A little while and I will be gone from among you, whither I cannot tell. From no where we came, into nowhere we go. What is life? It is a flash of a firefly in the night. It is a breath of a buffalo in the winter time. It is the little shadow that runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.

        – last words – Chief of the Blackfoot: Ispwo Mukika Crowfoot (1783-1850)

  2. One reason i believe that marginalization has taken place is parliament itself,in the passed 3 to 4 hour speeches were common place, you could comprehensively make your argument, whilst still gaining respect , nowadays a minister is given 15mins to push his point vehemently almost bullying his view on the public and slowly it seems to me that in public it is bad politics to show Weakness(compassion) to your opponents.
    which only exaggerates the differences between the two sides and makes politics more tribal, Oh for a more inefficient parliament

  3. One can attack each side of the political debate as much one likes and offer up Third Way or Mutualisation ideas or anything else that comes to mind. But until the system changes, when it comes to voting day you have a choice between two major parties. There are no IFS and no BUTS. That is your choice. It is therefore perfectly logical that if one party gets slagged down enough by bloggers and assorted commentators, they might lose the election in favour of the other. That is where we are heading IMHO: Cameron losing and Red Ed being elected. Much MSM is on side in this gameplan. It won’t be a numerical majority: Britain doesn’t do that these days, but it won’t stop Milipede hitting us with Hard Left in-your-face socialism. I’ve had a belly full of socialism thanks. The last century contains enough factual history that it destroys everything in its path, wrecks economies, wrecks societies and slaughters millions in the process.

    Like so many others, I am disappointed with Cameron/Osborne because I do not see them as having grasped the magnitude of the crises this country is in and how much reform is needed, especially to the unelected and faceless Civil Service who wield far more power than most people realise. I’ve sighed over the fact that DC is not a reformer and appears to have adopted Keynesian economics despite is being proven not to work. It goes on. But the alternative would be death by a thousand cuts. Carrying out venomous witch hunts against Cameron and Hunt when there’s no smoking gun will just open the door to the alternative.

    • I’ve been following your stuff for a few months now, and I have to acknowledge that you are solidly consistent; surprisingly so.

      I simply cannot understand how anyone can look at the postwar history of Britain and conclude that the 30 years post-Attlee (1945-1975) were calamitously worse than the 30 years post-Thatcher (1979-2009). That is, beyond all all shadow of doubt, an indefensible point of view.

      Of course, the years’ post-Blair (1997 & continuing) have been dire beyond all imagining, from whatever political position one looks at it; and are now becoming daily almost indescribably worse. I think, and hope, that we are in the trough of an irrepairably broken political (and banking) system.

      • @Mukoshi: The 60s and 70s were bad times as the trade unions flexed their muscles and wrecked British industry, piece by piece. Most of this was tolerated by the Labour Party, often openly supported. It was about this time that Labour ceased being a Party for the betterment of the workforce and adopted a Hard Left political ideology better suited to the old USSR that some members strongly supported. Think Michael Foot.
        I recall a Times cartoon showing Wilson and a tipper truck pouring vast quantities of money down the coal mines and shouting “say when”. I still recall MSM before the 79 election warning us of the communist bid for power that was emerging. That fear is what brought Thatcher to power in 79 with a mandate to put the union barons back into their cage and arrest the trend towards communism. She succeeded but it was a grand fight.

        The 80s were a good period which came to an end when Major took over.
        You will recall he suffered destructive squabbles over Europe.
        That’s not to say Thatcher did everything right, eg: IMO she privatised some industries wrongly. BT is little better towards customers today than it was under state ownership. But that’s not her fault. It’s partly the fault of faceless corporatists in Ofcom.

        During the wilderness years of Labour, they focused on stuffing the Establishment with like-minded socialists. 1997 to 2010 is marked by Blair and Brown and Labour’s systematic attacks on civil liberties, violations of the Rule of Law, hollowing out of the justice system, endless surveillance, a shift towards a fascist police state, City regulation wiped away, an unsustainable credit boom, eventual collapse of the economy, a broken society which now lives on welfare, an education system that’s been wrecked and more poor people than when Labour came into office. It goes on.

        I leave it to others to judge whether the years 1945-1975 were better or worse than 1979-2009. Lots of pros and cons on all sides :-)

      • BT
        ‘The 80s were a good period which came to an end when Major took over.’
        Blimey. You LIKED the 80s?

      • @John: You bet I liked the 80s!
        - the computer industry was booming – some unbelievable technological advancements happened including my own dream: The Personal Computer, which I’m proud to have been a member of the team that introduced it to the world.
        - my own personal wealth and success was going forward – but no time to spend it.
        - lots of good music about!
        - I thought we’d seen the back of socialism/communism! {sigh}

    • @BT If the insect to whom you refer in your first para gets elected I will consider a brief trip to Switzerland. Cameron/Osborne et al have not grasped anything because.. they are too grasping. Without a major reset, consciousness included, it’s death either way. We cannot be selective about where we confront disingenuousness; I think you would need to turn a pretty big blind eye to Camerunt’s cosying and the evidence of their dissembling about it in order to excuse them? As for smoking guns, the very fact that Cameron employed ‘Culson’ reeks of cordite to me. Without a reset it will be a thousand cuts whoever is at the wheel because the problems are systemic (IMHO).

      • Mukoshi, what? IMF bailouts, endless strikes, rolling power cuts, the winter of discontent, double digit inflation, nationalising and wrecking of our major industries. Thatcher was not right on everything and made mistakes. But what exactly happened between 1979 to 1997 to compare to the complete mayhem that went before?

      • and to BT I agree, Millipede will win, Cameron is a meaningless empty space anyway. Really the only way things will ever get sorted out is for labour to get in power and completely screw the entire country over. Until that happens their ideas wont be discredited and no one will get a mandate to actually do what’s necessary regarding the state and the economy. I’ll be long out of this country by then but still it is sad to see.

      • @H……b: Thanks, very well written stuff.
        I have long advocated that Britain adopts a strong written constitution and BoR, not simply to limit the damage that Labour can do in office but also the Conservatives. Our political elites collectively have far too much power, much of it without checks and balances, and exercised by the faceless Civil Service. This would be the ‘reset’ you talk of.

        As for smoking guns, if anybody can produce a reasonable case against Cameron for employing Coulson, I’m all eyes. My strong impression of DC and others in his party is *not* that they’re systemically corrupt, but they badly lack political maturity and an understanding of how childish and petty the Labour Party is when it comes to throwing dirt about.
        Recall that in the period before the last election, the Cameron Party completely failed to nail any blame onto Brown for the collapse of our economy. Before that they failed to throw any dirt at Labour for its own corruption and assorted incompetent policies: too many to list. This reinforces my view that its naivety, not corruption that is their failing.
        I may be wrong and I will modify my view if relevant facts come to light.

        @soap: I fear you are right. Sadly, Brown wrecked the economy but when the election came round, Labour still got a whopping large vote considering. I wonder how much damage they need to do before people wake up.

      • @BT: As a young man I had no interest at all in politics; I was far more attracted to music, buddhism and the ‘wisdom of the East’ plus, of course, evaluating various recreational substances and their fitness or otherwise for human consumption etc. My family could probably be described as high tory – I remember a morning in the late 90′s, I was listening to the Today prog and William, not long in post, was offering some worthless mumbo; I was thinking what a twat, when the phone rang. It was my mother and during our exchange she revealed that she and my father had been having dinner with him the previous evening. As one gets older and engages more with the world, Western asceticism being practically an oxymoron, one eventually has to consider the political beliefs that impact on one’s life and the people who espouse them. I suppose that I woke up during the 80′s and, to be honest, I didn’t like what I saw. I still feel that the most powerful and enduring message that came out of Thatcherism, whether or not it was a core intention, was ‘you’re a mug if you don’t’. I briefly belonged to the Labour party and still belong, for no good reason, to a union (Musicians’). Needless to say, New Labour were a crashing disappointment for me and very many others and I quite accept that socialism, certainly as it exists in reality, is a monster. However, I have little stomach for rampant self-interest either.

        Your first para I pretty much agree with on the basis that such a reset would inevitably entail a major change in the mindset too.

        Although I do not watch television, I do occasionally see some when visiting friends or my aged parents and have seen Coulson perform. As with the rest of that ilk, I find him to be odious and took an immediate (it saved time) and instinctive dislike to him. I simply cannot accept that having people of such obviously and, in the worst way, pragmatically ‘populist’ pretensions so close to a political power base – never mind a serving government – is in anybody’s real interest because it is a standing temptation to abuse; indeed, to my mind, it is of itself an abuse. That Labour were the first to do it, frankly, is neither here nor there – it is simply wrong. I would therefore respectfully submit that Cameron was, from that moment on, fatally flawed. I do not believe, either, that this government is particularly ingenuous. Partly as a result of the rate of change brought on by technology, I believe that we now suffer from such a degree of impulsivity that action very often precedes thought of consequence. During this rush towards who knows what, it has been relatively easy for those who think that self enrichment brings fulfilment to achieve a stranglehold on power. As far as I can see, there are few if any on the political scene who can gain any purchase on this slippery beast as we gallop towards some sort of major, and inevitable, correction.

        Sorry to be so longwinded, I will now return to my original radio transcriptions of Gunsmoke……… wait for me Mr Dillon! ;-)

      • @H…..b: Well, that’s fascinating reading! Even tho’ you was brung up proper by yers High Tory ma and pa you still voted Labour early in life.
        Not unusual actually…
        When I reached age 18 and got the vote I celebrated in the local village pub. I recall a local Tory man there asking me if I had any idea of who I’d be voting for. I responded with: “I dunno, I just want government to get off my back and out of my pocket”. Looking back, that seems like a dream given the relentless growth of interfering government over the decades to the point of national asphyxiation and bankruptcy.
        Has it been for society’s benefit? I don’t think so. It’s created a society of people who know their rights, know what they’re entitled to and don’t want to stand on their own feet, add value or pull their weight. Issues all highlighted by Tullett Prebon last year in Project Armageddon, a post mortem on the Blair/Brown years. This is the nation created by the Left in my lifetime in the name of progress. ha-ha. It has nothing to do with compassion, fairness, equality or any other fluffy Lefty term. It’s simply to satisfy the Left’s craving for more State power and control because *it* knows better. The arrogance and abuse of power follows it around.
        The political Right has gone along with this madness to avoid electoral obliteration: people always vote for more largesse and the Left knows this very well. The alternative is not a society of people infected with “rampant self-interest” as the Left would have us believe and the Left-infected educational establishment brainwashes kids with. And IME, people like this are mostly on the Left anyway. There is no contradiction between a healthy society operating free market capitalism, rewarding hard work and innovation, and showing compassion towards others. Only the Left and its army of true believers would have us believe otherwise. In the same way that the Left claims that fascism is far-right, so they peddle the nonsense that making a profit is nasty, selfish and anti-social. They live in a fantasy la-la land and as Tullett Prebon spotted, the Left’s policies simply do not add up and are not in accord with human nature. But they can always wheel out the high priest of Keynesian economics: Paul Krugman, to juggle the figures and confuse City scribblers in MSM.
        At this point I need to point out that although I belong on the Right (small govt, sound money, personal freedom & responsibility etc), that does not mean I automatically support the Tory Party! The Party has shifted to the Left in recent years and are now best described as Blue Labour, with few reforms on the agenda.

        A similar thing has happened elsewhere around the world. There is no peaceful way back. When govts go out of control, the only solution is to remove them from power and press the big Reset button.

        On Coulson…I have no view of him either way. I believe it’s true that when he was first employed by Cameron he had not been arrested in the NOTW hacking scandal nor charged with perjury in Scotland. Even if Cameron had bad ideas about him, the worst offence he’s guilty of is poor judgement in taking him on. He’s now gone. I do not know if the net is closing in on Cameron as @JW seems to think. If it is, I will not spare criticism even though what follows will be 10x worse and steeped in Left corruption.

      • @BT: Thank you for your considered and well articulated response. Yeah, I was dragged up proper… but 35 yrs of Souf London and manual labour (motors/music/building trades) have knocked off quite a few corners I’m glad to say. As ever, I agree with a very great deal of what you say and will continue to learn from your comments. Whether you are celebrating anything or not, I hope you have a good ‘jubilatory’ weekend!

    • Sorry BT
      I can’t see what you’re on about, because my eyes are smarting. I think it must be all the gunsmoke.

      • This is the earliest ‘reply’ I could find to respond to Innocent Bystander; I was picking up on BT immediately above me.
        I’m busy now, having to accompany my wife on an ‘essential’ shopping trip. but I’ll try to come back to Soap and BT later.

      • “The school was at the centre of controversy in 1996 when Labour Party Shadow Cabinet minister Harriet Harman sent her son to the school, despite it being some considerable distance from where she lived. Many considered her sending her son to a selective school to be contrary to Labour’s supposedly egalitarian principles.”

      • Now I have re read it it makes more sense, I thought Jo said Hannan. But thanks for the info, it’s just another reason to detest Harperson

  4. Very good, John, spot on. And kudos for you for writing the following paragraph without mentioning the doyen of all hate-filled rags, The Guardian. Your restraint can only be applauded :-))

    “That the syndrome is on the increase in Britain is hard to deny, and although most of it used to be in the ‘new’ viral media, it is creeping into the old school more and more. The Sun has always been ineluctably nasty about The Other Lot, and the Dacre Mail is unspeakable in its appeal to the knuckle-draggers, but the Telegraph is getting Icepickitis as well nowadays, The Mirror’s political stuff is increasingly class-warrior drivel, and The Times reads more like the thinking man’s Sun with every week.”

  5. This is off topic (so John remove if seen as irrelevant)
    Is this the beginning of the end of even fake democracy in Europe or perhaps the beginnings of wars?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9307560/Spanish-premier-Mariano-Rajoy-calls-for-eurozone-centralised-control-authority.html

    which ties in, in terms of ‘their’ intent for the future, with this page of german-foreign-policy.com

    http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58304?PHPSESSID=gasjiceipvh4klsc838q1pl3u7

    I have never been a conspiracy theorist before, mistrusting intense paranoia as an aid to thinking, but the comments in the DT article make that link.

  6. Re the essay:
    “I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.”
    ― Jonathan Swift

  7. JW – I concur that Campbell needs to be turned of if on the TV.

    Others that I just cannot watch are:- Balls, and his wife. Harman, Blair, Brown, Mandy (getting a theme here I think!), and finally Clegg. Cameron and Osborne are working their way towards my “off list” quite quickly. Livingstone and Galloway have made it to my list, but luckily we don’t see them too often!

  8. Lithuania seem to have sussed out the downside of having special advisors in a democracy if the second paragraph is anything to go by : -

    http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2012/06/01/seimas-wastes-our-time-and-money-telling-itself-what-to-do/

    In fact Lithuania as a whole comes across as remarkably progressive judging by the contents of this newspaper!

    It may just all be propoganda of course, one should never base your opinion on a single source, two sides and all that, perfectly highlighted by their quoting The Mail as the source for their opinion on the quality of British educational achievements.

    What was standout though was the existance of ‘The People & Peasants Party’, seemed the perfect name for a party offering a third way without any of the airs or graces associated with the other lot. Obviously the peasant part is a bit earthy for some tastes but as that’s the inevitable route for the middle classes under this present system, may help focus the mind a little?

  9. “The bloke is a delusional, sanctimonious sociopath who has perjured himself the length and breath of every enquiry in London, and undermined the rule of Law in Britain like no Prime Minister before him.”
    What, “Miranda”? surely not……He is a self satisfied, smug, sanctimonious
    scumbag. A rope would be too good for him.

  10. I don’t understand this business about Millipede being hard left. It’s total hokum. Unless he has secretly decided to abandon New Labour and everything it stood for, which is exactly what the Conservatives stand for; this modern, broken, form of capitalism which is in the process of eating itself. There is barely a fag paper between them, much of today’s policies are a continuation of Labour ones, on the nhs, welfare reform, infringing civil liberties, all of it. Does anyone believe Labour let all those immigrants in out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, it suits business to keep labour costs down.

    The only difference between them is the rhetoric. If Milliband was PM today you’d hardly be able to tell the difference.

    So it does look likely that Milliband will be PM in 2015, but if him being a hard leftie is what worries you, I wouldn’t fret on that count.

    • @MrsGranger: If Milipede isn’t Hard Left, then that’s just fine.

      Do you know if his puppet masters agree with you on this?

  11. it looks like this post failed to moderate your readers john, must be we are just to far down the path of chest beating,those dam baboons from your earlier post seem to rule the roost, that and this post actually shows us what we should be doing showing tolerance and understanding
    ps only one question should be asked of members of the coalition have you ever been camping in Snowdonia and who owned the land

    • They couldn’t live within their budget, everything is out of control so they agree on a Central Authority to control their finances = We FU, the bubble is about to go bang….I think you should be looking after our finances, all 27 of you in this boat together .
      Looks like you learnt something from the Greeks

      • He knows what’s coming and he doesn’t want to take responsibility for the austerity. So much easier if he blame the pain on the eeevil central authority and be left to enjoy the accoutrements of his job.

      • Exactly right and others can pay to prop up our crock banks while we milk the system and drag all our dirty linen out of the closet – oh, we found another €500bn debt we forget to tell you about .

  12. Other lot vs bad lot, this lot vs that lot, my lot vs their lot.
    While ever we remain locked in the cage of the fake left/right paradigm, enlightenment will always be tantalisingly out of reach.

  13. BT. I don’t think that the destruction of industry was ever openly supported. Labour were too weak, but ‘openly supported’ is over-egging.

    The emerging communist bid for power was a myth. It was acknowledged on all sides that the British electorate was unlikely ever to vote for it. Any fears in the 70′s were about fascism; partly the NF and partly silly newspaper proprietors (and people of the Mark Thatcher type) who had deluded thoughts about engineering a coup. Although they did manage to make Mr.Wilson nervous.

    What brought Thatcher to power was Callaghan’s miscalculation about the timing of the election; he was relying on gerrymandering, but instead missed the boat. The trend towards communism doesn’t exist outside your post

    The 80′s may not have been wholly bad, but they did include the highest ever level of inflation, massive increases in unemployment (and the consequent squandering of oil revenues), the beginning of the destruction of heavy industry and manufacturing, and the privatisation of essential utilities (now all in foreign ownership).

    There seems little point in debating the Blair years’; whatever our point of view, we both now know that they were disastrous.

    . .

    • @Mukoshi:
      Members of the 70s Labour Party may not have openly supported the destruction of British industry, but many did openly support events which lead to it: union strikes for inflationary pay increases, strikes for virtually anything. Labour had a habit of siding with strikers and their phony grievances. Industry was the battleground.
      Your comments about the 70s fears being about fascism are misguided IMO. But as people know I do not see much difference between communism and fascism: they’re two heads of the same evil snake. In the end they both introduce jackboots to enforce their will and they both wreck everything. But it was communism that was talked about at the time, rightly or wrongly. Some union barons were visiting Moscow on ‘friendship’ trips…presumably to get their orders.

      What brought Thatcher to power was growing widespread societal fear of what was happening to Britain under the Labour Govt and its inability and reluctance to deal with it, because Labour was funded by trade union barons. Same thing today. Blair was never able to sever links to the unions…follow the money. And who was it that installed Mr Ed Milipede into the Labour Leadership job? Why yes, the union barons. He is their man. They are the puppet masters *whatever he says in public*.

      Events of the 80s were not caused by Thatcher. They were the inevitable consequence of disastrous policies of the previous Labour govt. Remedial actions were necessary to sort it all out. To blame her for inflation & unemployment is like blaming Cameron for the appalling state of our economy today, when most people know it was created by the Blair/Brown govts. Too bad they’ve not been held to account…Britain will pay the price for that.

      YMMV :-)

  14. Soap; The IMF bail-out was a chimera; it wasn’t needed.

    I grant you the endless strikes, in my view a function of defective management. The rolling power cuts were Heath, double digit inflation reached its peak under Thatcher.

    What happened between 79 – 97, and beyond into the Blair period, was that the Post-War Settlement, which created a comprehensive infrastructure of welfare (based on Beveridge) was severely damaged and undermined; and is now being actively destroyed by the current government.

  15. Cameron, Osborne, Boris, all dullards who were properly well-educated in spite of themselves, and have a competent vocabulary. Unfortunately they have all fooled themselves into believing they are smart.
    (and don’t get me started on Hunt the Hunt.
    Politics is filled with self-delusional people, maybe we should have exams * they have to pass if they want to be MPs…. especially if they have never had a private-sector, real world job.

    * not multiple choice neither, nor learn-by-rote

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s