In every Tory leadership election since Thatcher, the bookies’ favourite has lost. And while you cannot easily discern where the winner would come from on the economic left/right scale, the authoritarian/libertarian scale is absolutely significant. In every single case the winner has been the Tory of the most authoritarian views, and the losers – think Ted Heath, David Davies, Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo – have been on the socially liberal side of conservatism.
Our political “journalists” only think left/right. So Cameron’s victory was a Tory move to the “left”. In fact it was not about that at all. David Davies, the favourite defeated by Cameron, has described the new Tory anti-trade union bill as “Francoist”. He opposed control orders, stop and search, detention without trial and the banning of protest from around Westminster. That is why he lost – the Tories have a dog whistle reaction to follow authoritarian figures. Cameron’s Old Etonian patrician authoritarianism is what they wanted.
That is why Theresa May is going today to give a bloodcurdling speech attempting to stir up racism against immigrants by saying they are making us poor and making our society less cohesive. She will even pander to the ludicrous notion that an economy is of a fixed size no matter how many people are in it, with a fixed number of jobs, so “they” are taking “our” jobs. Doubtless she will also outline yet more definitions of thought crime and new reasons to lock up young Muslims.
She may be vicious and dangerous to our society, but she is not stupid. It is the way to become Tory leader.
Nobody ever lost money overestimating the viciousness of the Tories. In fact the arms and security industries and the bankers, the private health companies, the hedge funds and the private agencies enforcing government policy make fortunes out of it every day.
Jemand
06/10/2015 10:12pm
If you say so. When you decide to post your evidence – as you said you would – then we’ll look again. Makes no difference to me.
John
Jemand, please try to have patience. At no time at all have I ever demonstrated sophistry or evasion, and accusations of that nature do not bode well for the start of what might be a fruitful discussion. I have, however, declined to participate in discussion with you in the past because the discourse was fraught with abuse and unpleasantness. That remains broadly my policy, though I do try to overlook minor hiccups, since I know these discussions do evoke great passion and anger.
In a similar vein, it probably is not helpful to accuse me of being indoctrinated – there would be no value in your reaching out to me if that was true, and of course if my answers fail to satisfy you, you can pronounce that my indoctrinated state renders me beyond help, making any prior discussion pointless. Is it not perhaps better just to say that we disagree?
I’m about to close the laptop for the night, but perhaps – if we can agree on the need for civil exchange – we can have a dialogue tomorrow? I shall read the points you have made.
Mary
6 Oct, 2015 – 9:45 pm
If a need should arise for care/treatment from the NHS, will any of you complain if the nurse, doctor, radiographer, radiologist, phlebotomist, health care assistant, cleaner, ward maid, cook, porter, secretary, pharmacist or any other of the PEOPLE are involved in that care are from foreign countries?
I only experienced the greatest loving kindness from every member of the team who saved my life and cared for me over the last 18 months. I met men and women from many countries, all decent people.
_____________
Good observation there Mary.
As for Je, I am sure that we can teach his doctor to bester his English, but somehow doubt we can teach Je medicine.
Jon: “ I am certainly willing to believe that some people believe that, of course!”
“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so” – Mark Twain.
CM, do you respect peoples’ subscription to a faith that incites hatred and violence toward atheists?
Do you respect superstitions?
“Do you respect superstitions?”
I, for one, do not respect people’s delusions in invisible friends, sky-spooks, cloud beings, and angry old men in the sky. I think people ought to be treated for such delusions, not respected for having them.
Mary
“Patient killed unlawfully by overseas doctor…
Dr Ubani had had an application to work in the UK rejected by the NHS in Leeds because of inadequate English.
But he later got approval in Cornwall after they did not test his language skills. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8497911.stm
“At no time at all have I ever demonstrated sophistry or evasion..”
Please don’t let me interrupt the torrent of replies to my questions, Jon, but is more than one year enough time to find an answer to the question “What is a religion of peace?”
Waiting for more than a year while you immediately answer the most mundane and trivial enquiries from other people is showing more than patience, Jon. It is showing divine grace.
So, I have proven you to be evasive and that you use your own impatience for bluntness as an utterly pathetic excuse to evade the simple questions I posed you.
Am I surprised? In my post, I held faint hope that suddenly disappeared into the ether like a wisp of smoke.
*slow clap*
“Saying that immigrants damage social cohesion is very plainly racism.”
This may sound extreme, but regular readers will recall Craig’s claim that just to be opposed to mass-immigration is itself racist.
Ba’al Zevul – phew, what a screed. I was about to dismiss it as “based on hatred”, but wondered if such a statement would be inflammatory, given that rational discussions about immigration is one of the themes on this thread. But, I need not have worried about that, since the end of the piece is exactly an admission of the same: Frankly, my feelings for you, your media class, your waffling, unnecessary profession and your fellow reds are very close to unmitigated hatred.
I wonder if all sides of this debate might agree, as a starting point, that furious anger, or open statements of hatred of the other side, are not going to help. That is, incidentally, not aimed at anyone on this site – I rather have the above author in mind. A number of the other comments are equally dreadful too, and cause me to ponder whether there are places in the UK or online that – gasp! – you are not longer allowed to call someone a racist.
To be fair, it is good to see that the case for immigration can be made at The Spectator. Does this demonstrate that the ruling classes are in substantial disagreement on this issue?
The question that I had in my mind from Craig’s original post: is Theresa May’s blood-curdling speech going to help the Tories?
Evidently she is not actually going to change much the situation in reality, but that is not the point in politics.
I wasn’t convinced. The main anti-immigration opinion lies in areas who don’t see much immigration. People who live in multi-cultural areas have got used to it. Conservative politicians of ethnic minority origin will be offended, and will tend to cleave to their people.
Is it is not a last blast from dying racism?
“And, frankly, if someone gets called a racist in debate, does it matter? ”
There is room for debate whether it is wiser to let it go, rather than address it head-on. As you will note, Craig is quick to answer untoward allegations, but then he is public. It’s a higher bar for those anonymous. Unfortunately, we have ‘gotcha’ types who will continue to hound for an answer and it sometimes makes it impossible to let it go as many will assume the charge is true. Even if one is anonymous, a small community still makes one’s comments subject to the credibility test, and unanswered allegations can perforate the persona we inhabit for good or ill.
What I expect Jon is that you will not answer any of my questions without the evasion you just demonstrated and meandering waffling about your hypersensitivity to “abuse” which I take is a euphemism for “difficult questions”.
Interestingly, you don’t seem to display this frail disposition for frank dialogue when taking genuine abuse from those who can deliver it like a bucket full of razor blades to your face.
Is it so hard to admit that you are wrong? Let me refer you to Alcyone for some spiritual guidance on matters related to the sin of pride.
Jon, you might think that being called a racist is fine. I think false allegations that are intended to cause terible harm to someone’s reputation, job prospects and standing in a community to be criminally mischievous. Have you ever read the impacts suffered by known people who, with no evidence to support the allegations, have been accused of racism?
I guess it’s ok to accuse people of being a witch when you don’t like witches.
Jemand, are you actively trying to discourage me from answering your questions? If you want the privilege of finding me pathetic – utterly or otherwise – as well as indoctrinated and all the other things – I shall assume that you are not actually interested in discourse. I simply do not understand why you so often set up conversation with such great effort, only to make the process so unpleasant that it is not a wonder that I withdraw.
I have given you plenty of material to respond to, in particular about what levels of xenophobia is acceptable to entertain in debate. I thought my points were discursive and I invite you and anyone else to respond to them in a civil fashion.
Over and out until tomorrow. I am confident that you and I, Jemand, will one day debate with not a single insult thrown!
Anyway, just relax team. Theresa May has absolutely fuck all intention of doing anything about immigration.
And it’s time the Institute of Directors was outsourced anyway.
“Jemand
06/10/2015 10:12pm
If you say so. When you decide to post your evidence – as you said you would – then we’ll look again. Makes no difference to me.
John”
– –
Well then, if it “makes no difference” to you, as you just stated, then I will revisit my decision after you provide me with a motive. Being as evasive as Jon will not help you avoid the disgrace that comes with making false and malicious allegations and imposing an irrational obligation on the accused to prove his innocence – all for a non-existing act that carries no explanation of an offence. Bizarre.
You can consider your silly case dismissed. No case to answer.
Jemand
06/10/2015 10:57pm
I thought your decision was already made. I understood that you were going to post evidence that you had thanked “Fi” and that it had been deleted.
I assume from what you have said that you are no longer prepared to post that evidence, which is presumably because you do not have it, because you are a liar.
John
Regarding Clark
Please do be aware that Clark’s personal e-mail address is available here:
http://www.killick1.plus.com/home.html
Thanks, John
So many words expended in refusing to answer any my questions, Jon. And the answers were mostly self-evident. While you dismiss people’s objections to being slandered with potentially life-destroying accusations of racism, you cannot bring yourself to face some blunt and truthful observations about your own character and conduct. How is it that you have the special privilege of sensitivity and royal courtesy while other’s do not?
Jon, I am wiping the floor with you but you have no reply that can preserve any dignity in the complete destruction of your ecclectic mix of arguments on economics, society, immigration, communication etc.
Let’s just summarise at this point – you were asked technically clear questions that are concerned with the wellbeing of humanity but you refuse to answer them despite having the material means and time to do so.
What are interested people to make of this?
JSD, it just gets worse for you. You are making false assumptions and inferring false intentions in the mistaken belief that everyone else is as ignorant and spiteful as you.
Like Jon, you have no reply and are posting comments in bad faith for reasons obviously to do with inflating your own ego. Your inability to provide an explanation for me lying while readily accusing me of doing so shows you for the ill-bred churl that is obvious to everyone else here.
So go on and cry about failing to have me perform somersaults for you. I did predict that you would go on like a broken record, volume increasing. I was right, wasn’t I?
Jemand
06/10/2015 11:21pm
Well, why not post your evidence, which is what you said you would do in the first place, before I even addressed the matter? Then everyone will see how right you are and how wrong I am.
Let’s see if you do it.
John
Jemand: Flailing like a wild goose without feathers…lol.
That question has already been answered on the other thread, JSD. I did not specify a date or time, so I am not obliged to respond to your goading – especially when it is more convenient for you to provide a motive and explanation for the allegations you made against me. Remember – YOU made the allegations and the mod knows the truth. Can you explain his or her silence?
Going around in circles is what a broken record does, John. I win. You lose. Try to come to terms with it like a good chap.
Jemand, I’ve made my position very clear. Allow me to quote your own advice to you: you want me to perform your enumerated list of somersaults whilst at the same time subjecting me to a torrent of abuse. That is unacceptable as you well know, and I regret that I repeatedly need to make this explicitly clear. Even whilst addressing JSD, you insist on further sly digs at me.
If you need to have the last word, you are most welcome to insist that you have won the debate, or to shower my online handle with further insults of your choosing.
Ben, I have no respect for you because you have made yourself irrelevant.
Jemand
06/10/2015 11:36pm
All right. We’ll pick the matter up again as and when you decide to post your evidence.
John
Jemand; i have renewed respect for you due to your persistence without a cause. 🙂
An old joke; I hope it is still politically correct!
“Two friends, one of them a bishop, die in a car crash. They go up to heaven and meet St. Peter. Neither of them has sinned too much, so he lets them in. And he says to them, ‘If you have any special request, tell me now, and I’ll see to it that it gets done.’ The bishop, a religious person, asks to see God. St Peter is startled by his request and tries to dissuade him, ‘Seeing God is a sensitive affair—it’s very shocking. Few people can stand it. If I may advice you, please don’t insist on this.’ But the man is adamant and insists on his wish. Finally St Peter gives in and tells him, ‘Very well, if you insist. Just don’t blame me afterwards. Go that way and follow the signs: ’God’. And don’t forget to come back here.’ Off he goes to see God, while his friend wait with St Peter for his return. It takes ten to fifteen minutes before he returns. He is a mere shadow of himself, as pale as a ghost, and staggering about in deep shock. His friend is concerned to see him in this state and says, ‘By Jove, what’s happened to you? What was He like?’ But the man can only moan, ‘She’s black.’”
Jon, I thought the laptop was closing.
You have –
1. Proven that you are not the ready debater you purport to be,
2. Plenty of time (over one year for one question) and the means to answer valid questions that challenge your ideological claims,
3. Falsely accused me of abuse when I am rigourously interrogating YOUR claims,
4. Wrongly compared my refusal to disprove false allegations of misconduct on this blog made by a demonstrated liar and troublemaker,
5. Proven yourself every bit the player of games for low political advantage.
The only explanation I can think of that explains your behaviour is a combination of poor character and cognitive dissonance.
Recapping – I asked questions of your claims, you refuse to answer them for petty and disingenuous reasons. Someone could accuse you of intellectual cowardice but you would dismiss such a criticism as “abuse”.