Four ideological robots and a Guardian for Britain. The superficial knee-jerk Owen Jones, the not entirely clever James Cleverly, the bigoted love-not-hate of the Guardian kindergarten, the unthinking certainty of the Abbott from Hackney, and the arriviste privilege of Toady Young. What a shower they all are.
Here’s a cracker to kick things off: the long ago slammed shut mind of Owen Jones (still the only gay in the Pygmy tribe) would have us believe this bit of virtue signalling tosh:
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I strongly believe that Owen bach should be preserved for all those left in the ironic satire Nation. He is, without any doubt, God’s gift to us.
It’s good to see that he’d like be convinced. I’d like be one to do it, but I’d much morely like be Dun brextiin’ and get on with life beyond the clutches of a depraved neoliberal Superstate.
Jones the Think stands convicted of being unable to convince, so he always resorts to one of two approaches: to smash, or to reverse. Going forward, he thus has all the positivity of a World War II Italian tank. This is a shame, as were he to open what passes for his mind, engage first gear and travel to Greece, Poland, Hungary, Italy or Austria, he might learn something about fascism in the raw, as opposed to the invented version he sees everywhere among those who think him something of a lightweight.
I am using the ‘might” word more in hope than expectation: one day, pigs might learn to sing while flying, but on the whole it’s unlikely.
Meanwhile, across the HoC corridor, Tory tweeter James Cleverly has a go at Labour ladette Angela Rayner as follows:
The thing with Shit v Bust is that it all depends on whether you think being bust really matters any more, if a frightening proportion of one’s citizens are in the shit. We have to ask ourselves whether unreal Sovereign debt is unique to Britain, or if – just perhaps – it is globally generic, and therefore of little or no importance.
Being fiat bust is not, after all, the same as being homeless, starving, and lacking even a place to take a shit.
Saying what you feel is ipso facto bigotry in the Guardian. The Guardian content managers clearly approve of this.
I must be a bigot, because those who use a word suggesting that one or another ideology is correct are highly likely to be a Communist, a Nazi, a Fascist, or an Islamist. Or a Japanese member of the Spanish Inquisition who just emerged from a South American jungle after 427 years.
Or Guardian readers.
I’m sure that, if asked, Hackneyed of Hackney would reply that yes, she believes in democratic liberty. The trouble is that, with every utterance, she illustrates either grossly illiberal intolerance, or a contempt for democratic decisions. At times, she does both: after the Brexit result, for example, she was for a while churning out double-muddle-headers on a near daily basis.
The effort above from yesterday is not a classic, but it is wonderfully insouciant. Consider the following factors that she didn’t:
- A very large-scale YouGov survey conducted during 2009 showed a staggering 78% of Brits (quota’d by demographics and ethnicity/religion) to be not just in favour of immigration control, but in favour of an immediate halt to all immigration
- If the political élite – ie, her Party – had acted on that democratically expressed will a decade ago, we would not have a system that is allegedly inhuman, costly and unfit for purpose now, because the system would have been scaled down to close to zero.
- If I had a Pound for every time a Labour MP has criticised Britain’s housing crisis since 2010, I’d be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
To be unable to make a mental link between a UK housing problem and immigration that totals – regardless of kids since – in the region of 4.2 million since 2001 is surely evidence of a person who is unfit to govern.
She is to cognitive dissonance what Wayne Rooney is to soccer genius: it is her only metier. But at least Rooney is employable.
One of the more unpleasant aspects of politicians when in office (and their media supporters) is the desire to blame criticism on the “enemy”. At times it is justified, although – as with Abbott of Hackneyed – it is usually an excuse to hide behind a random factor – ehtnicity, social class, or just plain arrogant superiority complex.
Young is attempting to use the Speccie in order to defend criticism of his acceptance of a place on a body responsible for regulating higher education in the UK.
This is what Toby has to say on the subject in his Spectator piece:
‘The reason for all this confected outrage, of course, is that I’m a Conservative and an outspoken supporter of Brexit. Because I’ve said and done some pretty sophomoric things in the past, the government’s opponents think they can use me to embarrass Theresa May. I’ve become a political football.’
That, my fellow Sloggers, is victimist tosh. Everyone associated with the real need to reform British higher education opposes his appointment because Mr young is happy to ignore the obscene mess various Labour and Tory administrations have made of a UK higher education system that was once the envy of the entire planet. Given that he comes from the ranks of Labour peers who engineered the “everyone must go to University” bollocks of the 1970s (and then went through the Oxbridge/Ivy League privilege thus accorded to second-rate minds) makes his approach utterly predictable.
I know perfectly well that the Toadmeister runs a grammar school charity. What I don’t know is whyTF he doesn’t ask himself ‘Why does investment in Britain’s most important asset – the citizenry – have to rely on charity?’
The opposition to Toby Young’s appointment is based, among right-headed people, squarely upon his antipathy to open-minded education.